|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1331
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message ink.net... Bill Z. wrote: Sigh - more propaganda and debating tricks. Posting "the greatest number of such references" and then (purposely?) misinterpreting them, while ignoring anything that disagrees with their world view, does not constitute a respectable argument, and that is what Krygowski et al. do. I think that most everyone recognizes this by now. The data I posted was uniquely relevant, because it compared injury and fatality rates among helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists, as well as pedestrians, and motorists. It also provided the actual numbers of helmeted versus non-helmetd cyclists, so the data could be normalized, and even when normalized there was a significant difference in fatality rates. I'm afraid you're still attempting to read far more into the Florida data than is actually warranted, despite all the reasons I laid out in a previous post as to why they should be treated with considerable caution. Above all else, assuming Florida's bicycle helmet use rate really is down around the 10-12% level, we're obviously dealing with a potentially severe case of selective recruitment--where the behavioural differences between the helmet-using minority and non-helmet-using majority can swamp any other effect on safety that could theoretically be attributed to the helmets themselves. Gardening and sofa-sitting injury rates are not going to impress the Ontario ministers when they decide whether or not to enact the MHL. Fortunately, they wont ever see such nonsense. Well, how about the fact that in every US case for which we have reasonably reliable data, the imposition of a mandatory helmet law for motorcyclists has resulted in a significant *decrease* in the apparent safety effectiveness of those motorcycle helmets? Riley Geary |
Ads |
#1332
|
|||
|
|||
Steven M. Scharf wrote:
The data I posted was uniquely relevant, because it compared injury and fatality rates among helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists, as well as pedestrians, and motorists. I'm sorry, I must have missed where you posted injury and fatality rates for pedestrians and motorists. If you have such data, please do post it! Because I'm sure the (supposed) benefit of helmets would be at least as large for those pedestrians and motorists. And those groups do, after all, suffer FAR more serious and fatal head injuries than cyclists! With such data, perhaps we can move helmet promotion to those activities where it's actually more needed! Gardening and sofa-sitting injury rates are not going to impress the Ontario ministers when they decide whether or not to enact the MHL. I must ask again, since you've ignored my earlier request: Please guve an account of your experience in testimony before legislators! My experience in providing such testimony leads me to conclusions that are opposite yours. Why not tell us how effective your ideas have been in the past? If you fail to do so, I (for one) will conclude that you're talking through your hat*, that you have no practical experience on which to base such advice. *Or through your helmet, I suppose. :-) |
#1333
|
|||
|
|||
"Riley Geary" writes:
"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message nk.net... ... It is true that cycling is not a dangerous activity, and that no mandatory helmet laws are necessary, but there is no debate that helmeted cyclists fare better than non-helmeted cyclists, when crashes do occur. I doubt that even most helmet skeptics would deny that bike helmets confer at least some benefit for those cyclists who do find themselves involved in a crash, but the real question of course is: When I once suggested that Krygowski et al. post a citation to at least *one* study measuring a benefit for helmet use, no matter how small, that he thought was valid. He declined, and others on his "side" of the discussion became abusive at the mere suggestion. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#1334
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:47:34 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote in message . net: Posting "the greatest number of such references" and then (purposely?) misinterpreting them, while ignoring anything that disagrees with their world view, does not constitute a respectable argument, and that is what Krygowski et al. do. So, what, posting vague assertions and then ignoring any calls to provide evidence to back them is better? Help me out here. I think that most everyone recognizes this by now. What I think a lot of people recognise is that the sceptics have doe a lot more work proving their case than the zealots have, recently, despite the fact that the zealots, as the ones proposing an intervention, necessarily carry the burden of proof. Gardening and sofa-sitting injury rates are not going to impress the Ontario ministers when they decide whether or not to enact the MHL. Fortunately, they wont ever see such nonsense. So you say, but others think otherwise - and they are the ones who have experience of swaying legislators. Specifically, neither Frank nor I has ever managed to get a zealot to put a convincing case for cycling being either particularly dangerous or particularly productive of head injuries, compared with activities which nobody considers dangerous - such as walking. Indeed, after analysing the figures for children (those widely held to be most at risk) I found that the proportion of head injuries due to cycling is almost exactly average, while it is substantially above average for pedestrian injuries. Not only that, cycling is insignificant numerically as a cause of injury. And the major predictor of serious or fatal head injury is the involvement not of bicycles, but of motor traffic. Since cyclists form a small minority even of traffic injuries, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to focus on cycle helmets, which may prevent a small proportion of a small proportion of injuries, rather than working on the fundamental problem, which is careless driving. Except that cyclists are seen as an "out" group and it is politically easier to beat us with the stick of compulsory helmets than it is to control the dangerous behaviour of drivers. But I am neither pro nor anti helmet - I am a collector of evidence. So, if you have solid evidence that cycling is either uniquely dangerous or uniquely productive of head injuries please post it now. 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 |
#1335
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 04:15:15 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote in message et: I doubt that even most helmet skeptics would deny that bike helmets confer at least some benefit for those cyclists who do find themselves involved in a crash, but the real question of course is: Unfortunately, there are a few people that do deny this. Not many, but a few. And others who choose to pretend that people are saying this when they are not, in an example of the "straw man" logical fallacy. a) just how significant a benefit is confered? (obviously not nearly as much as the 30-35% benefit demonstrated for motorcycle helmets, let alone the absurdly inflated 85% figure still quoted by most helmet promoters); and more importantly It can't be reduced to a single percentage. For fatalities, the data shows around a 40% benefit, when crashes occur. 40% is not magnitudes of difference, but unfortunately it is high enough for some people to use as a justification for repressive laws. And where, precisely, do you get that 40% figure? Citation? Because as far as I can see "the data" shows no such thing - it shows that helmeted cyclists may or may not be more likely to crash, and it almost invariably points up such differences in the behaviour of the helmeted and unhelmeted communities that no other inference can be drawn. Unless you introduce compulsion, and helmet use goes up to 80%+, in which case you find, as the Aussies have, that the proportion of helmeted head injured cyclists is the same as the proportion of helmeted cyclists overall - in other words the difference between the communities appears to evaporate once the self-selection bias is removed. Well I don't want to ignore the implications, but they are immaterial. The fact that helmets reduce injuries and fatalities in the unlikely event of a crash does not warrant the passage of intrusive laws. You have evaded the point: the key question is not whether helmets affect the probability of injury given crash, but whether they affect the probability of injury given ride. I have seen no evidence that they make any significant difference to this overall figure, and neither did my Government when they looked. So do cite the data. I can assure you that if anyone shows up at hearings in Ontario, and argues that a helmet law isn't needed because more people hurt themselves gardening (or couch-sitting) than cycling, that this will only serve to strengthen the resolve of the misguided ministers pushing the MHL. We need to argue from defensible positions, and not descend to that sort of lunacy. So you say. And yet the experience of those who have successfully opposed helmet laws is that tactics which work a - show the flaws in the pro-helmet studies - show that helmet laws have never yielded measurable improvements in cyclist safety - introduce them to the concept of risk compensation - show that cycling is neither especially dangerous nor especially productive of head injuries - show that far greater benefit would accrue from controlling the source of danger, which also affects (more numerous) non-cyclist casualties - show that the major effect of enforced helmet laws is to deter cycling, which has a net public health cost I know that Scharf, as an undeclared compulsionist, would prefer we stick to "they work perfectly but please don't make us wear them". I have no evidence that Scharf's approach works. The tactics above recently worked in the UK and Ireland. 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 |
#1336
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 06:59:40 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message : When I once suggested that Krygowski et al. post a citation to at least *one* study measuring a benefit for helmet use, no matter how small, that he thought was valid. He declined, and others on his "side" of the discussion became abusive at the mere suggestion. Logical fallacy: burden of proof. We are not proposing an intervention, the burden of proof lies solely with those who are. 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 |
#1337
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
Including the CTC, Britain's largest cycling organisation, with 80,000 members. The entire board is sceptical and they played a leading role in defeating the helmet bill last year. As opposed to the League of American Hand-Wringers, which has had in place a mandatory helmet law for over a decade. Their magazine will not publish a picture of a caucasian touching a bicycle if he/she isn't wearing a foam hat, and they strongly encourage affiliate clubs to discriminate against unhelmeted riders. Mitch. |
#1338
|
|||
|
|||
Mitch Haley wrote:
As opposed to the League of American Hand-Wringers, which has had in place a mandatory helmet law for over a decade. Their magazine will not publish a picture of a caucasian touching a bicycle if he/she isn't wearing a foam hat, and they strongly encourage affiliate clubs to discriminate against unhelmeted riders. Well part of the discrimination is due to their insurance program. They offer good rates to clubs, but the company than underwrites the insurance has the condition that clubs insured through them must require helmets on all rides. If enough clubs went elsewhere for insurance, or were willing to pay more for the helmet requirement to be dropped, then LAB might change their policy. |
#1339
|
|||
|
|||
Riley Geary wrote:
I'm afraid you're still attempting to read far more into the Florida data than is actually warranted, despite all the reasons I laid out in a previous post as to why they should be treated with considerable caution. Every study suffers from the possibility of self-selection. I don't read too much into any study, but the Florida data at least finally is a direct comparison in injury and fatality rates between helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists, when accidents occur. It's far more useful than statistical data from New Zealand, where you're comparing whole population data without taking into account all the external factors. In any study you're going to have the problem that, on average, the people that wear helmets are going to be the higher-educated, more careful, more experienced, riders. I don't know how you could ever account for this self-selection factor in a study. |
#1340
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 06:59:40 GMT, (Bill Z.) wrote in message : When I once suggested that Krygowski et al. post a citation to at least *one* study measuring a benefit for helmet use, no matter how small, that he thought was valid. He declined, and others on his "side" of the discussion became abusive at the mere suggestion. Logical fallacy: burden of proof. We are not proposing an intervention, the burden of proof lies solely with those who are. Wrong - your "side" is making statements that helmets are ineffective. It is up to you to back up that claim. Neither Steven nor I have proposed any "intervention" (so suggesting that on your part is a red herring.) I'll snip the rest of what you say today as well - I'm busy and really don't have time to deal with your trolling and continual bogus arguments. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | Social Issues | 1716 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
Another doctor questions helmet research | JFJones | General | 80 | August 16th 04 10:44 AM |
First Helmet : jury is out. | Walter Mitty | General | 125 | June 26th 04 02:00 AM |
Fule face helmet - review | Mikefule | Unicycling | 8 | January 14th 04 05:56 PM |