Raged motorist strikes two cyclists

In article , Bill Sornson wrote:
Brent P wrote:
In article , SMS wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

Since there's little question that protective equipment prevents
_minor_ injuries, and since the majority of accidents come in that
category, one suspects that the real difference is not in
probability of death following an accident but in the percentage of
accidents that result in a visit to the ER and thus get reported
under that methodology.

Yes, historically that's been the problem with measuring the
effectiveness of protective gear, the very usage of the gear reduces
the number of emergency room (or other medical office) visits.
Unfortunately you can't tell someone that avoided a concussion
because they were wearing a helmet, "would you please go to the
hospital anyway so the ER statistics include your accident in the
statistics?"

On the other hand you can't make the guy who goes 'it's just a flesh
wound' and doesn't go to the ER go. Also you can't make the person who
goes for every little thing not go for a small scrape. On top of that
there is the variable of how likely these personality types are to use
or not use protective gear.

ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross statistics to
support their every view.

Clue time: a zealot tries to force other people to do as he does. There
is nobody trying to force you or anyone not to wear a foam hat. You're the
one with the apparent agenda (despite your denials) of forcing everyone
to wear the foam hats.

In article , SMS wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:

ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross statistics to
support their every view.

They do the only thing they can do. Facts, science, and logic have no
place in the world of the AHZ's.

Really? It's only those opposed to being -forced- to wear these damn
things that bothers with facts, science, logic, and engineering while
those wanting to do the forcing resort to being clever with statistics,
emotional stories, appeals that something is better than nothing, and
insults and belittling to anyone who doesn't want to wear bicycle
helmets/

I made my decision regarding helmets as an observer to the helmet wars in
the bicycling newsgroups over a decade ago, I see nothing has changed.

On Aug 28, 8:36 pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
Brent P wrote:
In article , SMS wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

Since there's little question that protective equipment prevents
_minor_ injuries, and since the majority of accidents come in that
category, one suspects that the real difference is not in
probability of death following an accident but in the percentage of
accidents that result in a visit to the ER and thus get reported
under that methodology.

Yes, historically that's been the problem with measuring the
effectiveness of protective gear, the very usage of the gear reduces
the number of emergency room (or other medical office) visits.
Unfortunately you can't tell someone that avoided a concussion
because they were wearing a helmet, "would you please go to the
hospital anyway so the ER statistics include your accident in the
statistics?"

On the other hand you can't make the guy who goes 'it's just a flesh
wound' and doesn't go to the ER go. Also you can't make the person who
goes for every little thing not go for a small scrape. On top of that
there is the variable of how likely these personality types are to use
or not use protective gear.

ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross statistics to
support their every view.

Go figger!

Bill, if you can't find the benefit of widespread helmet use by
studying the entire population of cyclists, where would you find it?

Helmet proponents routinely claim that widespread use of helmets will
cause tremendous reductions in injuries and/or fatalities. In many
places, helmet use has become widespread precisely because of such
claims - up to 90%, in some cases. Despite that, the promise of
tremendous injury reduction has proven false, except when caused by
tremendous reductions in bicycling itself.

When the promises didn't come true, I stopped believing in them. Why
do you persist?

- Frank Krygowski

On Aug 28, 6:40 pm, SMS wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Since there's little question that protective equipment prevents
_minor_ injuries, and since the majority of accidents come in that
category, one suspects that the real difference is not in probability
of death following an accident but in the percentage of accidents that
result in a visit to the ER and thus get reported under that
methodology.

Yes, historically that's been the problem with measuring the
effectiveness of protective gear, the very usage of the gear reduces the
number of emergency room (or other medical office) visits. Unfortunately
you can't tell someone that avoided a concussion because they were
wearing a helmet, "would you please go to the hospital anyway so the ER
statistics include your accident in the statistics?"

Sigh This has been explained to SMS so many times that I _know_
he'll never understand (or admit) it. But for those others still
reading:

Check out the Scuffham paper I cited earlier: Scuffham, et. al.,
"Trends in Cycle Injury in New Zealand under Voluntary Helmet Use,"
Accident Analysis &
Prevention, Vol 29, no. 1, pp. 1-9, 1997.

That study has no such weakness. It used an elegant method to find
the benefit of helmets, a method that should have detected any
"protected" helmet wearers. But it found no beneficial effect.

Scuffham's research team examined the hospital records of damned near
every hospitalized cyclist in New Zealand from 1980 to about 1996.
They determined the percentage hospitalized due to head injury.

At the end of that period, due to intense promotion just before a
mandatory helmet law took effect, helmet use more than tripled in a
short time. Scuffham assumed that many cyclists would be protected by
their new helmets; therefore, a _lower_ percentage would have been
hospitalized for head injury. Each "protected" cyclist would lower
that percentage.

But there was no change in that percentage. There was no detectable
benefit from helmet use in either adults, teens, or kids - even though
kids' helmet wearing suddenly got as high as 90%.

If 90% of the kids suddenly don helmets, yet the head injury rate
doesn't change, how can you pretend someone was protected?

To me, this seems incontrovertible. If you don't understand it, I see
only two possibilities: you have zero capacity for math, or you are
in complete denial.

- Frank Krygowski

aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 28, 8:36 pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
Brent P wrote:
In article , SMS wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Since there's little question that protective equipment prevents
_minor_ injuries, and since the majority of accidents come in that
category, one suspects that the real difference is not in
probability of death following an accident but in the percentage of
accidents that result in a visit to the ER and thus get reported
under that methodology.
Yes, historically that's been the problem with measuring the
effectiveness of protective gear, the very usage of the gear reduces
the number of emergency room (or other medical office) visits.
Unfortunately you can't tell someone that avoided a concussion
because they were wearing a helmet, "would you please go to the
hospital anyway so the ER statistics include your accident in the
statistics?"
On the other hand you can't make the guy who goes 'it's just a flesh
wound' and doesn't go to the ER go. Also you can't make the person who
goes for every little thing not go for a small scrape. On top of that
there is the variable of how likely these personality types are to use
or not use protective gear.
ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross statistics to
support their every view.

Go figger!

Bill, if you can't find the benefit of widespread helmet use by
studying the entire population of cyclists, where would you find it?

Helmet proponents routinely claim that widespread use of helmets will
cause tremendous reductions in injuries and/or fatalities. In many
places, helmet use has become widespread precisely because of such
claims - up to 90%, in some cases. Despite that, the promise of
tremendous injury reduction has proven false, except when caused by
tremendous reductions in bicycling itself.

When the promises didn't come true, I stopped believing in them. Why
do you persist?

Maybe Bill has attended faith based helmet education.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article , Bill Sornson wrote:
Brent P wrote:
In article , SMS wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:

ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross
statistics to support their every view.

They do the only thing they can do. Facts, science, and logic have no
place in the world of the AHZ's.

Really? It's only those opposed to being -forced- to wear these damn
things that bothers with facts, science, logic, and engineering while
those wanting to do the forcing

BBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT. Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
People who are "pro lid" -- that is, believe that they're a good idea and
effective in preventing or diminishing injury -- are NOT therefore in favor
of mandatory helmet laws. STOP THIS DISINGENUOUS BULL****.

That's quite bull****. I've had your kind yell at me, pull along side me,
etc telling me how I need to wear the foam hat. I've had more
interactions with bicycle helmet zealots 'preaching' to me in the last
decade than I've had from all other religions combined.

If you want to flame those who DO promote MHLs, then by all means do so.

Funny, you make your case the same the MHL types do, right down to the
insults.

But this fallacious crap of lumping people who CHOOSE to wear a helmet in
with those who would mandate it has got to stop.

You don't just choose to wear one, you clearly seek to expand the
religion and insult anyone who chooses not to.

Otherwise, you're no better than Feckless Frank, Flailor, Flogger and the
other F-heads.

When it comes to the foam hats, Frank makes the sound arguments. Of
course your pro-helmet arguments are about on par with Frank's
pro-speed-hump arguments.

In article , Bill Sornson wrote:

You're a clueless, lying moron. You obviously never read old threads with
the likes of Flailor and others disparaging everyone who chooses to wear
lids as therefore pro-MHL; it's dishonest, illogical and flat-out wrong.

I very well did read the threads, and while I don't remember every post
from a decade ago, there's little difference between a religious zealot
that is working to convert people and a person who wants a law to force
everyone to behave according to the rules of the religion.

I don't give a flying **** if you wear a foam hat. Period.

And yet you keep replying to me, insulting me for not believing as you
do. Your actions speak louder than words. I didn't come after you,
insulting you, you came after me, zealot.

You're really pathetic.

Nice projection.

Bill "and to think I started to feel sorry for you" S.

Still childish I see.

In article , Bill Sornson wrote:
Brent P wrote:
In article , Bill Sornson
wrote:
Brent P wrote:
In article , SMS wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:

ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross
statistics to support their every view.

They do the only thing they can do. Facts, science, and logic have
no place in the world of the AHZ's.

Really? It's only those opposed to being -forced- to wear these damn
things that bothers with facts, science, logic, and engineering
while those wanting to do the forcing

BBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT. Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong
wrong wrong. People who are "pro lid" -- that is, believe that
they're a good idea and effective in preventing or diminishing
injury -- are NOT therefore in favor of mandatory helmet laws. STOP
THIS DISINGENUOUS BULL****.

That's quite bull****. I've had your kind yell at me, pull along side
me, etc telling me how I need to wear the foam hat. I've had more
interactions with bicycle helmet zealots 'preaching' to me in the last
decade than I've had from all other religions combined.

You're a weak-minded liar.

no lie at all... there was this one woman who pulled along side me and
honked and then proceeded to block traffic to tell me about the virtues
of foam hat wearing. I've had oncoming drivers yell 'wear a helmet' at
me. It's in 3rd place after 'get off the road' and 'get on the sidewalk'
for things yelled at me while riding.

PLONK

Giving up so easily in your quest to convert a nonbeliever?

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:40:50 -0700, SMS
said in :

historically that's been the problem with measuring the
effectiveness of protective gear, the very usage of the gear reduces the
number of emergency room (or other medical office) visits

Yup. As Thompson, Rivara and Thompson proved so well, helmets
prevent over 70% of lower limb injuries. Yay for helmets!

Oh wait, we were looking at the *proportion* of head injuries. Looks
like you haven't read the evidence, then. Again.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:36:29 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
said in :

ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross statistics to
support their every view.

They might do, I've never seen an anti helmet zealot so I wouldn't
know about that. Who's proposing a law forbidding helmet use?

Incidentally, the reason for looking at population studies is that
the hospital-based prospective studies claim to be predictive. It's
reasonable to measure those predicted effects against what happens.
And as it turns out the prediction is not borne out.

The same applied to HRT and heart disease.
http://chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Observational_studies

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound