Raged motorist strikes two cyclists

Festivus wrote:

The argument starts to stretch my imagination when claims are made that
helmets offer little or no protection to impact. Perhaps no study can
show definitively that they do, but humans are hard to study precisely
because it's unethical to do the study right. I can't prove they help,
and you can't prove that they don't, for precisely the same reason, so
I'll continue to assume common sense applies.

There can't be a double-blind study of course. So you go by all the
studies that do exist, especially the direct comparisons of emergency
room statistics which show a large benefit in terms of reduced head
injury and death rates for helmet users versus non-helmet wearers.

The AHZ's will invent a thousand reasons why the ER statistics should
not be believed, but their arguments are very, very weak. Even weaker
are the bizarre arguments involving driving helmets, cancer, walking
helmets, etc.. They're desperately trying to rationalize and defend
their own behavior, instead of basing their opposition to helmet laws on
the personal freedom position. They don't like the personal freedom
approach to fighting helmet laws because it would force them to admit
that they are assuming some additional risk with their decision on what
level of safety equipment to use.

The surest way to get helmet laws passed is to show up at public
hearings and try to use some of the arguments we've seen in this thread.

Please, AHZ's, stay away from public hearings and don't write letters to
newspapers with your ideas about walking helmets, cancer, and driving
helmets, and don't try to attack ER statistics with stories about income
levels or risk-compensation. You don't believe them yourself, and you're
not smart enough to convince doctors, lawyers, and other politicians.

What is true is that bicycle accidents involving head injuries are
relatively rare, so helmet laws are unnecessary and invasive public
policy, especially for adults, but even for children.

On Aug 22, 11:25 pm, Lobby Dosser
wrote:
wrote:
A time series study, by its nature, does not require comparing two
groups at the same time. Effectively, the control group is the
population of cyclists before the massive use of helmets. That group
is compared with the population of cyclists after the massive use of
helmets began.

CLUE: There is no "massive" use of helmets. Except, perhaps, among children
in those jurisdictions where helmet use is mandated for children.

I'm sorry that you've lost track of our conversation. I was
discussing a particular scientific paper, published in a refereed
journal, examining the effect of a surge in helmet use in a certain
country. That country had 90% of its child cyclists wearing helmets,
due to intense promotion just before a MHL.

Read back in the thread so you understand what we're talking about.

- Frank Krygowski

On Aug 23, 2:31 am, SMS wrote:
The AHZ's will invent a thousand reasons why the ER statistics should
not be believed, but their arguments are very, very weak.

;-) Steven M. Scharf (SMS) is free to give his opinion regarding the
strength of a particular arguments, but he should at least detail
some justification for his opinion. Those of us who know his Usenet
history don't accept his self-proclaimed expertise on anything other
than coffee!

But let's clear up a mistake in his sentence above. Helmet skeptics
do not say that ER statistics should not be believed. In fact, I make
use of such statistics regularly in these discussions. What we say is
that simple case-control ER studies with self-selected helmeted
subjects are fundamentally flawed - and that those are the type of
studies that helmet proponents most rely on.

Think about that. "Self-selected" means the person being studied has
personally chosen whether to adopt a certain intervention. And a case-
control study with self-selected subjects should not be accepted to
determine the effectiveness of any medication or other health-related
intervention.

Why? Because the person choosing the intervention automatically
proves himself to be different from those who do not choose it. That
person is likely to have other behavioral differences that affect the
results.

The classic example is post-menopausal women who choose hormone
replacement therapy. HRT was touted for years as a health benefit,
because the first women who chose to take hormones were found to have
less heart disease, fewer cancer deaths, etc.

But when large population, _randomized_ studies were done a few years
ago, researchers found that HRT was actually a significant risk,
causing _more_ such health problems, not fewer. The explanation?
Those women who were early adopters of HRT were very health
conscious. Their better health was caused simply by their overall
attention to their health - i.e. better diet, more checkups, and more
exercise. Probably more bike riding!

Doctors now understand how the early information was distorted. They
have largely given up prescribing HRT as a result of this.

With helmets, the situation is exactly analogous, except that the very
earliest adopters - those persuaded to wear helmets by Seattle's
hospitals in 1989 - were "captured" as data points by the infamous
Thompson & Rivara study of "85%!!!" fame. And despite ample large
population studies showing no benefit, people are still being fed that
erroneous "85%" figure, one which as never ever been confirmed
anywhere else.


Please, AHZ's, stay away from public hearings and don't write letters to
newspapers with your ideas about walking helmets, cancer, and driving
helmets, and don't try to attack ER statistics with stories about income
levels or risk-compensation. You don't believe them yourself, and you're
not smart enough to convince doctors, lawyers, and other politicians.

For those who are unfamiliar with SMS's advice: As far as we know, he
has never written to newspapers, convinced doctors, lawyers or
politicians. He simply makes pronouncements of his judgment on
Usenet.

Others posting here have, indeed, done the things he advises against,
and done them to successfully fight mandatory helmet laws. It seems
that there are doctors, lawyers and politicians that can be convinced
by real data. Not all of them, of course; but hopefully, that will
improve with time.

SMS should be free to use whatever arguments he likes. But he should
not condemn others' choice of argument. His judgment is not better
than others.

What is true is that bicycle accidents involving head injuries are
relatively rare, so helmet laws are unnecessary and invasive public
policy, especially for adults, but even for children.

At least he's got that right.

- Frank Krygowski

Lobby Dosser wrote:
wrote:

A time series study, by its nature, does not require comparing two
groups at the same time. Effectively, the control group is the
population of cyclists before the massive use of helmets. That group
is compared with the population of cyclists after the massive use of
helmets began.

CLUE: There is no "massive" use of helmets. Except, perhaps, among children
in those jurisdictions where helmet use is mandated for children.

I don't know where you are, but in my area helmet use is definitely
massive, for both children and adults. I'm definitely in the minority
when I ride without a helmet.

On Aug 23, 7:01 am, wrote:

Who cares. If you want to gain friends and allies, DON'T SIT AND ARGUE
AND ADMONISH.

Keep your ass out of any voting booths until you figure it out.

AND SHUT UP!

On Aug 23, 7:52 am, wrote:
On Aug 23, 2:31 am, SMS wrote:

The AHZ's will invent a thousand reasons why the ER statistics should
not be believed, but their arguments are very, very weak.

;-) Steven M. Scharf (SMS) is free to give his opinion regarding the
strength of a particular arguments, but he should at least detail
some justification for his opinion. Those of us who know his Usenet
history don't accept his self-proclaimed expertise on anything other
than coffee!

But let's clear up a mistake in his sentence above. Helmet skeptics
do not say that ER statistics should not be believed. In fact, I make
use of such statistics regularly in these discussions. What we say is
that simple case-control ER studies with self-selected helmeted
subjects are fundamentally flawed - and that those are the type of
studies that helmet proponents most rely on.

Think about that. "Self-selected" means the person being studied has
personally chosen whether to adopt a certain intervention. And a case-
control study with self-selected subjects should not be accepted to
determine the effectiveness of any medication or other health-related
intervention.

Why? Because the person choosing the intervention automatically
proves himself to be different from those who do not choose it. That
person is likely to have other behavioral differences that affect the
results.

The classic example is post-menopausal women who choose hormone
replacement therapy. HRT was touted for years as a health benefit,
because the first women who chose to take hormones were found to have
less heart disease, fewer cancer deaths, etc.

But when large population, _randomized_ studies were done a few years
ago, researchers found that HRT was actually a significant risk,
causing _more_ such health problems, not fewer. The explanation?
Those women who were early adopters of HRT were very health
conscious. Their better health was caused simply by their overall
attention to their health - i.e. better diet, more checkups, and more
exercise. Probably more bike riding!

WTF made you a doctor AND a shrink? What does gynecological science
have to do with helmets? Why do youharp on people nobody knows in four
other groups==trollduggery?

How do we know you aren't a gay child molester, arsonist impersonating
a priest and prostate impaired bedwetting Nazi?

Fair enough? You're not going to get anywhere arguing like this ever,
not for two minutes or ETERNITY. You don't know HOW to argue, only
whine and if your children do this to they should be banned from ever
voting or making a conscious thought.

People will die if they damn good and want to. Stop being some pussy
Socialist--take care of YOURSELF before you take care of others or
they will see the difference.

Move out of the city while you're at it, it makes you confuse one head
for another.

Festivus wrote:

I do understand statistical analysis. To have a truly sound conclusion,
you need to give helmets to randomly selected members drawn from the
same population of riding skills and habits. You have to be diligent in
collecting data on all incidents in those groups, not through the biased
selection mechanism of emergency room visits.

The ER data actually significantly underestimate the helmet benefits
because helmet wearers are far less likely to be taken to the ER with a
concussion or other head injury in the first place.

For the very serious accidents, where even a helmet could not prevent
critical injury or death, the statistics will show no benefit for helmet
usage. The ER studies all conclusively show the benefit of wearing a
helmet, even without factoring in all the avoided ER visits.

SMS wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:
wrote:

A time series study, by its nature, does not require comparing two
groups at the same time. Effectively, the control group is the
population of cyclists before the massive use of helmets. That
group is compared with the population of cyclists after the massive
use of helmets began.

CLUE: There is no "massive" use of helmets. Except, perhaps, among
children in those jurisdictions where helmet use is mandated for
children.

I don't know where you are, but in my area helmet use is definitely
massive, for both children and adults. I'm definitely in the minority
when I ride without a helmet.


Beaverton, Oregon. A burb of Portland.

In article ,
SMS wrote:

The AHZ's will invent a thousand reasons why the ER statistics should
not be believed, but their arguments are very, very weak. Even weaker
are the bizarre arguments involving driving helmets, cancer, walking
helmets, etc.

Sneering at the arguments and calling them bizarre doesn't make them
any less valid.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article ,
SMS wrote:
Festivus wrote:

I do understand statistical analysis. To have a truly sound conclusion,
you need to give helmets to randomly selected members drawn from the
same population of riding skills and habits. You have to be diligent in
collecting data on all incidents in those groups, not through the biased
selection mechanism of emergency room visits.

The ER data actually significantly underestimate the helmet benefits
because helmet wearers are far less likely to be taken to the ER with a
concussion or other head injury in the first place.

That mechanism does not cause underestimate of helmet benefits.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.