To sock or not to sock?

On Fri, 06 May 2011 13:46:29 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Phil W Lee
wrote:

That is rich, coming as it does from someone who feels he can
pontificate about the methodology of research he has never even heard
of, never mind read.

Maybe you should note that many of us here started out as foam hat
supporters, and changed our position after having studied the
evidence.

That's fine. Have you not noticed that I haven't mentioned helmets in
quite a while? I'm not discussing helmets; I'm discussing research...
and I'm quite sure of myself on *that* turf.

But, no... I haven't ever even looked briefly at a helmet study
because I'm indifferent. If you'll listen, though, I *can* show you
how to use research more effectively. When I present a paper, it will
frequently survey literally hundreds of studies and all I've ever read
are the abstracts.

I can glance at the writing on this forum and tell very quickly that
most people here have scant understanding about research... you don't
actually *read* the boring damn stuff! (No more than you absolutely
must, anyway.) All I really need are the methodology and findings; if
the former support the latter, then all is well... that study becomes
a data point in a larger, _meta-study_, if you will. I don't want to
get bogged down in one study... I'm looking for an emergent "big
picture".

If you can't take the whole corpus of any author's work, then don't
cite that author. I won't cite an author for whom I must apologize!
The last position in which I want to find myself is saying that the
author I cited took money, drugs, or sex to present false findings
later on; he either lacks competence of scholastic honesty; in either
case, I don't want him in my bib.

When researching human behavior, a dangerous word is "cause" or any
derivative thereof. "Helmets cause ..." ; never complete that
sentence! Never directly deny that sentence, either: "Helmets do not
cause ..." Instead, use: "It has not been shown that helmets cause
...." That gets real important in what you call "case/control"
studies.

A whole-pop study can find causality, but only within the population.
In that type, the sample is the population and the entire population
is the sample... if you're in the sample, then it applies to you; if
not, it doesn't necessarily apply. They're kind of useless except for
dissertations; on the other hand, they're easy to do. I've just seen
several people toss out that "Whole Population Study" term as if it
was some kind of a super-study; it's just a study that only applies to
the actual sample. You frequently see it used in a mixed methods,
quantitative/qualitative approach and it's fairly effective in the
right context.

On 5/6/2011 11:01 PM, Tom Lake wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2011 13:46:29 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Phil W Lee
wrote:

That is rich, coming as it does from someone who feels he can
pontificate about the methodology of research he has never even heard
of, never mind read.

Maybe you should note that many of us here started out as foam hat
supporters, and changed our position after having studied the
evidence.

That's fine. Have you not noticed that I haven't mentioned helmets in
quite a while? I'm not discussing helmets; I'm discussing research...
and I'm quite sure of myself on *that* turf.

But, no... I haven't ever even looked briefly at a helmet study
because I'm indifferent. If you'll listen, though, I *can* show you
how to use research more effectively. When I present a paper, it will
frequently survey literally hundreds of studies and all I've ever read
are the abstracts.

I can glance at the writing on this forum and tell very quickly that
most people here have scant understanding about research... you don't
actually *read* the boring damn stuff! (No more than you absolutely
must, anyway.) All I really need are the methodology and findings; if
the former support the latter, then all is well... that study becomes
a data point in a larger, _meta-study_, if you will. I don't want to
get bogged down in one study... I'm looking for an emergent "big
picture".

If you can't take the whole corpus of any author's work, then don't
cite that author. I won't cite an author for whom I must apologize!
The last position in which I want to find myself is saying that the
author I cited took money, drugs, or sex to present false findings
later on; he either lacks competence of scholastic honesty; in either
case, I don't want him in my bib.

When researching human behavior, a dangerous word is "cause" or any
derivative thereof. "Helmets cause ..." ; never complete that
sentence! Never directly deny that sentence, either: "Helmets do not
cause ..." Instead, use: "It has not been shown that helmets cause
..." That gets real important in what you call "case/control"
studies.

A whole-pop study can find causality, but only within the population.
In that type, the sample is the population and the entire population
is the sample... if you're in the sample, then it applies to you; if
not, it doesn't necessarily apply. They're kind of useless except for
dissertations; on the other hand, they're easy to do. I've just seen
several people toss out that "Whole Population Study" term as if it
was some kind of a super-study; it's just a study that only applies to
the actual sample. You frequently see it used in a mixed methods,
quantitative/qualitative approach and it's fairly effective in the
right context.

A condescending lecture from a person who deliberately falsifies
quotations. Wow.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Fri, 6 May 2011 08:20:47 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On May 6, 4:58*am, Harry Brogan
wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2011 08:47:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski

wrote:

Why do people keep promoting an ineffective solution to a largely
nonexistent problem?

- Frank Krygowski

I can certainly agree that bicycle head injuries are rare. *I am a
member of the "over-the-handlebars" club and it wasn't a lot of fun
smashing my head against the sidewalk. *Now, just in case, I do wear a
helmet. *Simply because I don't want to end up with a more serious
injury than what I had then.

Thanks for your input, but I'll continue to wear one!!!!! *

And that's fine, Harry. I understand how such a crash could have that
effect on a person.

But isn't it interesting that the number of serious head injuries that
occur inside cars, or while traveling on foot, completely eclipses the
number that occur while bicycling - yet you never hear of motorists or
pedestrians who adopt your tactic?

- Frank Krygowski

Perhaps that's because they feel completely safe in theit "steel
cages". As for the walking, I doubt that people really give much
thought to having any accident any more serious than a stubbed toe.

The only drawback I have found to wearing a "bicycle" helmet has been
that it seems to make it just a BIT harder to turn my head around.
Although not really enough to hinder my riding.

There certainly HAVE been times where I have not worn the helmet. But
it has become such an integral part of my daily riding that I feel a
bit odd to NOT have the thing on.

On 07/05/2011 03:31, Tom Lake wrote:

Usenet bets are always bluster; actually, I prefer the term
"rhetorical". I've seen brainless wagers keep a flame war alive for
month after weary month while they cussed each other about how much
and who held it. I volunteered; however, I certainly never saw any
money.

But I can lecture on any damn thing that pleases me. If it doesn't
please you to read it, then don't. Fair enough?

I'm quite happy for you to do what you do here, which is
demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that you don't actually
know anything much about the subject being discussed.

So yes, that's fair enough as far as I'm concerned.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Sat, 07 May 2011 05:05:49 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tºm Shermªn™
°_° " wrote:

A condescending lecture from a person who deliberately falsifies
quotations. Wow.

Well, Tom... if someone can walk in and get under your skin *that*
easily, perhaps you should consider a different form of recreation?

If you participate in Usenet, you will see extremes of language,
opinions, biggotry, anti-Semitism, sexism, etc; you can't get your
panties in a wad every time you don't happen to approve of someone's
news reader's settings.

I have an idea! Why don't you simply ignore my postings since they
seem to upset you so badly? Doesn't your reader come with a filter?

On May 6, 5:05 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On May 6, 1:12 pm, Tom Lake wrote:



On Fri, 6 May 2011 08:54:12 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank

Krygowski wrote:
Statistics can (and do) show that ordinary cycling does not impose any
unusual risk of serious head injury, despite propaganda to the
contrary. And statistics can (and do) show that widespread adoption
of bike helmets has not had a beneficial effect on serious head injury
rates. Really, that's all that's needed to adequately understand this
issue.

But if you'd like more, an examination of helmet design and
certification standards, plus some knowledge of physics and
physiology, give good understanding of why bike helmets are likely to
be ineffective. You persist in trying to change topics. If you really want to discuss
smoking or handgun safety devices, you might start a different thread.
Well, we could discuss the psychology of those who:
1) fail to study a topic, yet
2) give advice and solicit debate from those who have studied the
topic, and then
3) say "I'm getting bored" instead of "I have much to learn."

Frank, "Ordinary cycling does not impose any unusual risk of serious
head injury," is known as a null hypothesis.

Sorry, but no. It's a report of findings from examinations of data.
(And please note, your clumsy attempt to rephrase it as a hypothesis
omitted a very important part of my statement, the word "unusual.")

Actually, "There is no
correlation between ordinary cycling and elevated risk of serious head
injury," would be how I'd phrase it if I planned to publish my
findings...

:-) You're a long way from publishing any findings, Tom. For one
thing, you're too far behind on the reading - or IOW, you don't know
nearly enough about the topic.

Classic Krygowski.


For another thing, your clumsy hypothesis is a tautology. There's
_some_ correlation between elevated risk of head injury and cycling.
And motoring. And walking for transportation. And descending stairs
(a very strong one, that last); and jogging... Need I go on?


So would a wearing helmet be any benefit in any of those activities?
No? Would wearing a helmet be worth the cost? Is wearing a helmet
worth the cost when bicycling? Is a used bike frame worth $675? To
you? To me?

But back to this discussion: You keep trying to retreat into topics
you _may_ know more about (like smoking) or to hide behind definitions
of terms we already know (like "null hypothesis"). Those tactics
won't work.


I believe he acknowledged that he doesn't expect to convince you of
anything.

What you need is a full retreat, then a thorough study of real-world
data, plus some critical analysis of the helmet promotion and helmet
skeptic research. Many of us have done that, and many helmet skeptics
have adopted that position based on what we learned.


And stopped wearing one... because it costs something, right? And
statistics have convinced you that the benefit (if you acknowledge any
benefit at all, that is) is not worth this cost. But I - and I
imagine many others - do not make this cost/benefit decision based on
anything that goes on with other people. I base it on my own
experience and perception of *my* own individual risk.

And BTW, if you really do read and review research for a living, as
you claim, your apparent assumption that one study (say Scuffham 2) is
as good as another (say, Scuffham 1) is strange indeed! Seems you're
claiming your job is worthless!


Classic.

On Sat, 7 May 2011 07:15:02 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Dan O
wrote:

Classic Krygowski.
So would a wearing helmet be any benefit in any of those activities?
No? Would wearing a helmet be worth the cost? Is wearing a helmet
worth the cost when bicycling? Is a used bike frame worth $675? To
you? To me?
I believe he acknowledged that he doesn't expect to convince you of
anything.
And stopped wearing one... because it costs something, right? And
statistics have convinced you that the benefit (if you acknowledge any
benefit at all, that is) is not worth this cost. But I - and I
imagine many others - do not make this cost/benefit decision based on
anything that goes on with other people. I base it on my own
experience and perception of *my* own individual risk.
Classic.

Without trying to be obnoxious about it, I would simply suggest that
Frank, like many people in many different forums, is searching for the
"silver bullet".

By that, I mean the "QED" piece of evidence that, once and for all
time, sets the hypothetical matter to rest. There is simply no such
thing.

That mentality isn't limited to those of us in the United States;
however, however, other societies seem to tolerate life's ambiguity
better than we do. We (in the US) tend to declare "Mission
accomplished", game over... and we're honestly confused when the other
side of the matter disagrees. "Why, they're *terrorists*, of
course... why can't they see that we won?"

Helmets work for the same reason condoms work; they're passive
devices. That said, the old "Sheath that dagger before you bag her"
campaigns of the '80s were profoundly ineffective at reducing STDs.
That doesn't mean condoms don't work, though.

I still choose to wear a condom when I cycle.

Back to my point... I had one here, someplace, I'm sure.

In human behavior, there are no definitive studies, no statistical
"silver bullets" ... the intelligent consumer of research looks at the
whole body without trying to find that which proves some religous
belief or pet theory. Ultimately, the individual has to make an
informed decision and accept responsibility for that decision.

On May 6, 3:55 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 5/6/2011 7:39 AM, Tom Lake falsely quoted due to improper software
programming:


snip


Do you agree that quitting smoking is a healthful lifestyle change
that everyone should do?

The early deaths will save on retirement costs.


The societal cost of so many individuals' unnecessarily poor health is
enormous, and the horrible cost of a drawn out miserable end - for the
sick individuals and for those who care about them - is incalculable.

(That said, quitting can be hard.)

On 5/4/2011 7:26 AM, Opus wrote:

In the event of getting hit with a car helmet use has little to no
effect on head injury. Bicycle helmets are designed for a 12.5 MPH
impact, in TX the statutory lowest speed limit is 30 MPH for
residential streets.

You're mistakenly assuming that should your bicycle be struck by a
vehicle moving at 30MPH that your head will hit the ground at 30MPH.
You're also mistakenly assuming that even if you did hit the ground at
30MPH that there would be no difference in the severity of injuries with
or without a helmet.

On 5/4/2011 6:16 PM, Chalo wrote:

snip

You ask me to disregard observations I have made directly from
innumerable crashes of my own, and from the crashes of people I
know.

Absolutely. The enormous body of statistical and scientific evidence
that clearly shows the beneficial effects of bicycle helmets in head
injury crashes trumps your tiny bit of anecdotal data (if that anecdotal
data exists at all).