Helmet Nazis at It Again!

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:

See Robinson, D.L., "Do enforced bicycle helmet laws improve public
health?" BMJ 2006;332:722 (25 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7543.722

Robinson is an anti-helmet fanatic as should be evident from her posts
on this newsgroup...

Robinson is a PhD in Statistics who is expert at spotting distortions
in statistical claims. She's pointed out time and again the
statistical lies helmet proponents have concocted. She's had important
articles published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals like Accident
Analysis & Prevention, Injury Prevention, the British Medical Journal,
etc. Those articles frequently correct the claims of the pro-helmet
camp.

Bill has tried matching wits with her, and failed miserably.
Ultimately, he resorted to insulting her until she stopped posting
here. A valuable contributor was driven away.


Frank is willing spin whatever he can find to further his
agenda. Here is part of what he isn't telling you.

If you look at
http://www.bfa.asn.au/bfanew/pdf/publications/safety_in_numbers.pdf#search=%22australia%20bicycl ing%20rates%200.6%22,
you'll read about Smeed's law, which states that the risk per person
goes up as more people drive. This law has been shown to work for
bicylists as well. Evidence includes the comparision of cities with
different numbers of active cyclists, and also some results for
Australia, where the number of cyclists doubled from 1982 to 1989.
That time period is way too short to explain the difference as being
due to infrastructure improvements that attracted more cyclists.

Apparently the number of cyclists went down substantially immediately
after the MHL was passed (although it started to go back up later).
If you decrease the number of cylcists, however, the accident rate per
cyclist-mile goes up. The 'before/after' studies based on gross
averages over a population generally do not account for the effect
mentioned above.

Yes, immediately after imposition of MHLs, there was a very significant
drop in cycling (well over 30%). Yes, it "started to go back up later"
- slowly, as population grew. It's certain that without the MHLs,
there would be much more cyclists than there are now.

That drop in cycling probably did decrease the safety of the remaining
cyclists. It is a fairly well-known effect. What Bill seems to miss
is that this is _not_ a good thing!

Incidentally, while that effect can be considered one confounding
influence in a before-after study of helmet effects, there are others.
For example, stricter anti-speeding laws and anti-drunk-driving laws
were enacted at the same time as bike helmet laws. These increased
safety for pedestrians, and thus probably had a beneficial effect for
cyclists. There were other complications as well, some of which (like
changes in hospital policies) would also tend to reduce the head injury
count. But even with those influences, cyclists ended up worse off as
a whole despite the fancy foam hats.


The fact to take away from this is: Forcing helmets on Australian
cyclists did no good. Many people chose to give up cycling, or cycle
significantly less. Those who continued to cycle were no safer.

Why are these things still being strongly promoted?

- Frank Krygowski

writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:

See Robinson, D.L., "Do enforced bicycle helmet laws improve public
health?" BMJ 2006;332:722 (25 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7543.722

Robinson is an anti-helmet fanatic as should be evident from her posts
on this newsgroup...

Robinson is a PhD in Statistics who is expert at spotting distortions
in statistical claims.

Invalid argument (note the spin). The paper I referred to at
http://www.bfa.asn.au/bfanew/pdf/publications/safety_in_numbers.pdf#search=%22australia%20bicycl ing%20rates%200.6%22 included an effect that
Robinson was no doubt unware of during her initial claims about
helmets. We are talking about a systematic error that requires
expertise in a field other than statistics.

She's pointed out time and again the statistical lies helmet
proponents have concocted.

Bill has tried matching wits with her, and failed miserably.
Ultimately, he resorted to insulting her until she stopped posting
here. A valuable contributor was driven away.

Krygowski is lying as usual. Robinson made a fool of herself with a
month of non-stop name calling that would embarass a 13 year old
child, and was incapable of answering simple questions such as
what level of helmet effectivenss one might expect to be detectable
from the data she was ranting about. Given her behavior, I have
absolutely no respect for her.

Yes, immediately after imposition of MHLs, there was a very significant
drop in cycling (well over 30%). Yes, it "started to go back up later"
- slowly, as population grew. It's certain that without the MHLs,
there would be much more cyclists than there are now.

That drop in cycling probably did decrease the safety of the remaining
cyclists. It is a fairly well-known effect. What Bill seems to miss
is that this is _not_ a good thing!

Krygowski is lying again - I've never posted one staement in favor of
mandatory helmet laws, and the effect is not "fairly well known" on
this newsgroup - in fact I'm the first person to ever mention it.

Incidentally, while that effect can be considered one confounding
influence in a before-after study of helmet effects, there are others.

I.e., the studies Robinson and Krygowski like to talk about don't
tell you very much about how well helmets actually work - exactly
what I've been saying.


The fact to take away from this is: Forcing helmets on Australian
cyclists did no good. Many people chose to give up cycling, or cycle
significantly less. Those who continued to cycle were no safer.

Why are these things still being strongly promoted?

Well, I'm not promoting helmet laws. Perhaps you can cite any
state legislature trying to pass one this year. Or do you object
to educational campaigns encouraging helmet use (which do not reduce
the level of cycling as anyone who does not want to use a helmet
can simply refuse to use one - it is personal decision.)



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:
wrote:
justin david wrote:


I guess if you get hit head on by a car going 85 mph while riding
your bike or a jet falls out of the sky and on top of you, the
helmet may not be able to do much to sustain your life, but I
think most accidents that happen on a bike that engage ones' head
don't happen in that circumstance... however, if you're riding and
you get doored and your head hits the pavement, the helmet will
possibly save you from massive trauma and quite possibly death.

... with "possibly" being the important word.

Frank's on record agreeing that helmets can /possibly/ save lives!

I'm also on record as agreeing that Zippo lighters in shirt pockets
can "possibly" save lives by stopping bullets aimed at the heart.
That's actually happened a couple times.

You're the one who conceded that a "helmet will possibly save you from
massive trauma and quite possibly death." -- not I.

I suppose you recommend everyone always carry a Zippo? ;-)

Possible versus feasible? Conceivable? Plausible?

Anyway, a more apt analogy might be to a so-called bullet-proof vest: by
your (so-called) logic, why wear one at all if it won't prevent death or
serious injury 100% of the time? (In fact, the wife of a cop here in SD
just won millions from a jury because the vest maker didn't "reveal" that it
wasn't effective in certain scenarios -- like point blank angled shots.
Typical US litigation bull****.)

Bowing out now, Frank -- sure missed you while you were away! eg

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 05:07:22 GMT, "Bill Sornson" wrote:

wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:
wrote:
justin david wrote:


I guess if you get hit head on by a car going 85 mph while riding
your bike or a jet falls out of the sky and on top of you, the
helmet may not be able to do much to sustain your life, but I
think most accidents that happen on a bike that engage ones' head
don't happen in that circumstance... however, if you're riding and
you get doored and your head hits the pavement, the helmet will
possibly save you from massive trauma and quite possibly death.

... with "possibly" being the important word.

Frank's on record agreeing that helmets can /possibly/ save lives!

I'm also on record as agreeing that Zippo lighters in shirt pockets
can "possibly" save lives by stopping bullets aimed at the heart.
That's actually happened a couple times.

You're the one who conceded that a "helmet will possibly save you from
massive trauma and quite possibly death." -- not I.

I suppose you recommend everyone always carry a Zippo? ;-)

Possible versus feasible? Conceivable? Plausible?

Anyway, a more apt analogy might be to a so-called bullet-proof vest: by
your (so-called) logic, why wear one at all if it won't prevent death or
serious injury 100% of the time?

Well, that would be a common and sensible choice if the incidence of
bullet impacts were anywhere near as low as that of cyclists having a
head injury - remember that there is only one death per 450 years of
cycling non-stop 24 hours a day.

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:11:24 -0700, (Tom Keats)
wrote:

In article ,
dgk writes:

I always thought that equating cars with bikes was stupid.

Then you might find interesting, as I do, this collection of thoughts:

http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles.../contents.html

I find particular appeal in the concept of "folk transportation",
which I take as getting around safely without impinging on other
people regardless of, or despite traffic laws.

Thanks, that's a lot of interesting stuff to read. I didn't realize
the issue was so complicated. That said, I like bike lanes along
relatively quiet streets.

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:27:38 GMT, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 05:07:22 GMT, "Bill Sornson" wrote:

wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:
wrote:
justin david wrote:


I guess if you get hit head on by a car going 85 mph while riding
your bike or a jet falls out of the sky and on top of you, the
helmet may not be able to do much to sustain your life, but I
think most accidents that happen on a bike that engage ones' head
don't happen in that circumstance... however, if you're riding and
you get doored and your head hits the pavement, the helmet will
possibly save you from massive trauma and quite possibly death.

... with "possibly" being the important word.

Frank's on record agreeing that helmets can /possibly/ save lives!

I'm also on record as agreeing that Zippo lighters in shirt pockets
can "possibly" save lives by stopping bullets aimed at the heart.
That's actually happened a couple times.

You're the one who conceded that a "helmet will possibly save you from
massive trauma and quite possibly death." -- not I.

I suppose you recommend everyone always carry a Zippo? ;-)

Possible versus feasible? Conceivable? Plausible?

Anyway, a more apt analogy might be to a so-called bullet-proof vest: by
your (so-called) logic, why wear one at all if it won't prevent death or
serious injury 100% of the time?

Well, that would be a common and sensible choice if the incidence of
bullet impacts were anywhere near as low as that of cyclists having a
head injury - remember that there is only one death per 450 years of
cycling non-stop 24 hours a day.

Just done a little looking - it seems that 30 times more people are
murdered that are killed while cycling in the Unites Staes each year.

Yet very few of them wear body-armour when out in public. Why do not
the people who think it is a good idea to wear a helmet while cycling
not wear body armour? Perhaps it is because they have

a) an exagerated fear of the dangers of cycling

b) an exagerated belief in the protective powers of a foam hat.

Now, these same people are those who wriggle and turn when asked the
question "Why don't you wear a helmet while walking?" This question
(which comes from the fact that the vanishly small injury rate for
cyclists and walkers is roughly the same) if answered, would reveal
that they suffer from either, or both, of a) and b) above.

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:

See Robinson, D.L., "Do enforced bicycle helmet laws improve public
health?" BMJ 2006;332:722 (25 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7543.722

Robinson is an anti-helmet fanatic as should be evident from her posts
on this newsgroup...

Robinson is a PhD in Statistics who is expert at spotting distortions
in statistical claims.

Invalid argument (note the spin).

Oh? She _is_ a PhD in statistics. She _has_ devoted much time to
scientifically debunking helmet claims, in prestigious peer-reviewed
journals. For her, it's a professional interest as well as a personal
interest - much like, say, a bicyclist who opens a bike shop.

For this, you call her a fanatic?


Bill has tried matching wits with her, and failed miserably.
Ultimately, he resorted to insulting her until she stopped posting
here. A valuable contributor was driven away.

Krygowski is lying as usual. Robinson made a fool of herself with a
month of non-stop name calling that would embarass a 13 year old
child...

:-) I'll invite those who are interested to check the archives.
Search rec.bicycles.soc archives around, oh, 1996 or so. It shouldn't
take much time to decide whose character was childish.


I.e., the studies Robinson and Krygowski like to talk about don't
tell you very much about how well helmets actually work - exactly
what I've been saying.

Bill, you're using the tobacco companies strategy. In the face of
tremendous piles of data, you're grabbing any minor excuse, hoping to
hide the obvious.

For the tobacco companies, it was the obvious fact that cigarettes
_are_ bad for you. For the helmet promoters, it's the fact that
helmets are _not_ much help.


Why are these things still being strongly promoted?

Well, I'm not promoting helmet laws.

By "these things" I meant _helmets_, not helmet laws.

Here it is in a nutshell: Bicycling is NOT an unusual source of
serious head injuries. The risk for bicyclists is as low as the risk
for pedestrians.

Bike helmet use does NOT lower that risk appreciably. It may even
raise it.

Why are bike helmets still being strongly promoted?

Perhaps you can cite any
state legislature trying to pass one this year.

Oh, please, don't pretend nobody pushes mandatory helmet laws! A
helmet bill was introduced yet again in Ohio this year. Fortunately,
it didn't make it out of committee. Helmet laws have been enacted in
many cities, states, counties and countries, and there are active
campaigns right now in England, Switzerland, some Scandinavian
countries ... and probably many more.

Interestingly, apparently _all_ these campaigns still claim "helmets
prevent 85% of head injuries" although that has NEVER been seen outside
one tiny, incompetent study.

A study which Dr. Robinson proved wrong, BTW.

- Frank Krygowski

writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:

See Robinson, D.L., "Do enforced bicycle helmet laws improve public
health?" BMJ 2006;332:722 (25 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7543.722

Robinson is an anti-helmet fanatic as should be evident from her posts
on this newsgroup...

Robinson is a PhD in Statistics who is expert at spotting distortions
in statistical claims.

Invalid argument (note the spin).

Oh? She _is_ a PhD in statistics. She _has_ devoted much time to
scientifically debunking helmet claims, in prestigious peer-reviewed
journals. For her, it's a professional interest as well as a personal
interest - much like, say, a bicyclist who opens a bike shop.

Yes, invalid argument - you attempted an "appeal to authority" as a
rhetorical trick (and a logical fallacy) to avoid the issue, and her
postings on this newgroup showed that she was pretty much an
anti-helmet fanatic personally (hence her non-stop, month-long,
infantile name calling). I might add that one would really wonder
about a statistician trying to have an academic career devoting very
much time or effort to something as obscure and insignificant as
bicycle helemts, so chances are that you are simply spinning like
crazy (but propaganda seems to be your forte).

For this, you call her a fanatic?

No, I called her a fanatic based on her posts on rec.bicycles.soc.

Bill has tried matching wits with her, and failed miserably.
Ultimately, he resorted to insulting her until she stopped posting
here. A valuable contributor was driven away.

Krygowski is lying as usual. Robinson made a fool of herself with a
month of non-stop name calling that would embarass a 13 year old
child...

:-) I'll invite those who are interested to check the archives.
Search rec.bicycles.soc archives around, oh, 1996 or so. It shouldn't
take much time to decide whose character was childish.

Yeah, and you'll find that she was the one being childish (and her
behavior fit pretty much in with that of Tom Kunnich and Avery Burdett,
both of whom acted like a bull in a china shop looking at a red cape
whenever their fervent beliefs on helmets were questioned).

Oh, and when she asked what sort of studies I would believe, she
didn't like the idea of ones based on direct physical measurements
(obviously not her field as she is a statistician, not an engineer,
physicist, etc.)

I.e., the studies Robinson and Krygowski like to talk about don't
tell you very much about how well helmets actually work - exactly
what I've been saying.

Bill, you're using the tobacco companies strategy. In the face of
tremendous piles of data, you're grabbing any minor excuse, hoping to
hide the obvious.

More lies from Krygowksi, and note the "Karl Rove" tactic of trying
to accuse someone of doing exactly what he is now trying to do. In
fact, the lot of you cite studies that are incapable of determining
helmet effectivness, and then map a null result due to the inability
to tell anything at all into a statement about helmets. That's
pretty much what the tabacco companies did.

And note how he is ignoring that fact that Robinson's claims about
helmet effectivness comparing pre and post helmet law data did not
account for the fact that the accident rate varies with the number
of cyclists on the road. I just gave you a citation for that, but
when I mentioned the possibility years ago, as something that needed
to be checked, the whole anti-helmet crew went non linear.

For the tobacco companies, it was the obvious fact that cigarettes
_are_ bad for you. For the helmet promoters, it's the fact that
helmets are _not_ much help.

And both the tabacco companies and the anti-helmet people use the
same tactics since they are trying to sell people on something that
just isn't so.

Why are these things still being strongly promoted?

Well, I'm not promoting helmet laws.

By "these things" I meant _helmets_, not helmet laws.

Here it is in a nutshell: Bicycling is NOT an unusual source of
serious head injuries. The risk for bicyclists is as low as the risk
for pedestrians.

Oh, so you object to people encouraging helmet use, if only to get
some added protection in a fall or other accident?


Perhaps you can cite any
state legislature trying to pass one this year.

Oh, please, don't pretend nobody pushes mandatory helmet laws!

I asked you for some examples. That's not "pretending" anything!

A helmet bill was introduced yet again in Ohio this year.
Fortunately, it didn't make it out of committee.

That's nice. One friggin state and it went nowhere. Sounds like
one legislator introduced a bill and it was killed. That happens
all the time. If it can't make it out of committee, it isn't
exactly a major problem or even a serious effort.

Interestingly, apparently _all_ these campaigns still claim "helmets
prevent 85% of head injuries" although that has NEVER been seen outside
one tiny, incompetent study.

A study which Dr. Robinson proved wrong, BTW.

So, we are back to you ranting about one single paper that you are
pretending is the only work ever done! If it is that bad, why are
you still whining about it over 15 years after the fact?



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:29:35 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:


Oh, so you object to people encouraging helmet use, if only to get
some added protection in a fall or other accident?


Is such protection existed, why is it not shown by population studies?

wrote:
remember that there is only one death per 450 years of
cycling non-stop 24 hours a day.

Great, I have 390 years to live! At least statistically ;-) Do I get
penalized or rewarded for not cycling all 24 hours?

Good example of how data, even if it is correct, can be arranged to
create ratios/rates that have very obscure meaning.