|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a bicycle foam hat while riding a recumbent?
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. 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; that's called H0. H1 is: "There is a correlation between ordinary cycling and elevated risk of serious head injury, p0.05." So, I go gather data... and (not surprising to you, I expect), I fail to find any correlation, now... and there *will* be a test on this, Frank, so pay attention... have I shown H0? Have my data and analysis thereof demonstrated that "ordinary cycling does not impose any unusual risk of serious head injury"? They have not; what they have done is failed to reject that which is assumed to be true until shown otherwise. Juries don't find people "innocent", sir... when they fail to convict, it's just that. What you're doing is waving the null hypothesis as a proven fact, but people do that all of the time. The automotive seat belt debate is another good example of that. Do you think auto drivers should wear seat belts? |
Ads |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a bicycle foam hat while riding a recumbent?
On Fri, 06 May 2011 14:36:36 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Phil W Lee
wrote: Only if you don't actually understand them. Once you understand how the studies were performed, it would be fundamentally dishonest to select only the seriously flawed ones. No, he later looks at the SAME data, and cherry picks a subset of it to produce a result which is in line with his employers expectations. It's called "policy based evidence making". When are you going to start? An argument is more than rhetoric and assertion, and nothing you've produced so far actually qualifies as a valid argument. A valid argument for what? That studies of this type will tend to be all over the spectrum? Essentially, you take them all and look for a general trend. I'm only concerned with Scuffham in that it demonstrates how, when faced with contradictory findings, people will accept that which they already believed and dismiss the rest as conspiracy. That happens every day. Of course, I haven't *read* Scuffham; I read and criticize research for a living. If I ever get through the huge pile of it on my desk, I have a few novels to read... *then* I'll get to it. Meanwhile, I *must* turn to other tasks, so I'll leave y'all to... what were we discussing here? I'm having a senior moment. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a helmet while riding a recumbent?
In article ,
Peter Clinch wrote: Helmets work great at stuff like bashing tree-branches out of your way without getting a scratch or bump off-road, but if they generally helped on the road for A to B cycling then there needs to be a reason why serious head injury rates fail to decrease as more of them are worn. "It's counter intuitive" is not actually good enough (even though I agree that it is indeed counter-intuitive). Riding to deliberately run one's head into tree branches is incomprehensible. -- Michael Press |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a bicycle foam hat while riding a recumbent?
In article ,
Phil W Lee wrote: Tom Lake considered Fri, 06 May 2011 07:26:56 -0500 the perfect time to write: [...] Actually, this topic is starting to bore me. I can't think of a more trivial topic on which to spend years and thousands of postings. Bugger off then. You've had your troll. Wanted to see this again. -- Michael Press |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a bicycle foam hat while riding a recumbent?
On 5/6/2011 7:39 AM, Tom Lake falsely quoted due to improper software
programming: On Thu, 05 May 2011 21:51:16 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tºm Shermªn™ " wrote: While I wrote the above words, I did *not* write them as one paragraph. Combining them is therefore false quotation. Please do not do this again. If foam bicycle hats were effective, why does making previous non-users wear them (e.g. Australia and New Zealand) fail to reduce the death rate due to head injuries? That is all the proof a *rational* person needs to know foam bicycle hats are ineffective beyond bump and scrape protection. Those were Zionist lies from the very beginning, promoted by 5th columnists in the US government (e.g. Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Abrams, Libby), in the lobbying sector (e.g. AIPAC), and in the media (all the mainstream outlets) in order to have the US fight a war of destruction on Iraq on behalf of Israel and its goals of regional dominance. My reader is programmed to strip out existing quoted material and leave only the current writing to which I reply. When you write your reply into the body of the previous message, it also deletes empty lines on either side, so it appears as a single paragraph. If you use the essay style, then it will leave your paragraphs intact when empty lines are inside of your text. It deletes my writing, not yours. You are wrong. Part of my writing is line breaks. If your writing depends on mine for its meaning, then you have a problem, I suppose, but I don't. Get over it; it's a computer thing. Please desist in this false quotation, as it violates basic standards of decency in discourse. I will address your question; however, let's agree on the basics: Do you agree that quitting smoking is a healthful lifestyle change that everyone should do? The early deaths will save on retirement costs. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a bicycle foam hat while riding a recumbent?
On 5/6/2011 10:43 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On May 6, 10:46 am, Tom wrote: On Thu, 5 May 2011 21:50:22 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank wrote: Oh. Well, _that's_ certainly conclusive! What have you read on this subject? Do you mean on the subject of research methodology? No, on the subject of helmet efficacy. Also on the more fundamental, related subject: realistically evaluating the risk of serious head injury while cycling. I got bored with the silly helmet topic long ago... do as you please. ... and the fox said "I'm not interested in those grapes anyway. They're probably sour." - Aesop - Frank Krygowski +6.02x10^23 -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a bicycle foam hat while riding a recumbent?
On 5/6/2011 7:15 AM, Tom Lake wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 21:56:23 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tºm Shermªn™ " wrote: We have been over the problems with Scuffham changing conclusions many times. Comparing rates over 4 decades apart is hardly them same as comparing consecutive years before and after Liddite™ mandatory foam bicycle hat use implementation. More falsified quotes from Tom Lake, due to anti-social software programming. My point was that studies on the efficacy of protective clothing span a wide range of findings. By carefully choosing findings that support *my* side of the discussion and dismissing those which tend not to, I can "prove" just about anything. That tactic isn't new to studies of protective clothing. In fact, any topic that doesn't lend itself to an experimental method (abortion, the death penalty, gun control, and auto seat belts come to mind) will tend to that type of debate. Scuffham finds helmets don't work and you wave his work like the US flag at Ground Zero. Later, he looks at more data and finds something else. "That study is INVALID!" you say. I say that whether a study is valid or not depends on whether or not it supports your prejudice, not on its data and methods. Obviously Scuffham caved to political pressure. Duh. But, then... having been around Usenet a few days, I expected that. In a day or so, I'll move on. I can only argue about something as trivial as this for a short time. Do not let the door hit you in the arse on the way out. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a bicycle foam hat while riding a recumbent?
On 5/6/2011 8:42 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
[...] Bugger off then. You've had your troll. +6.02x10^23 -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a bicycle foam hat while riding a recumbent?
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. 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? 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. 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 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! - Frank Krygowski |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Should we keep arguing about helmets forever?
On Fri, 06 May 2011 17:55:53 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tºm Shermªn™
°_° " wrote: You are wrong. Part of my writing is line breaks. Please desist in this false quotation, as it violates basic standards of decency in discourse.The early deaths will save on retirement costs. Well, Tom, calling someone a "liar" for trimming extra levels of redundantly quoted text is a little over the top, don't you think? How does that behavior square with "basic standards of decency in discourse"? Since there all of the feelings of indecency and dishonesty over my news reader's settings, perhaps we should simply go our separate ways? I see no point in a long flame war, anyway. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unicycles and exchange rates | thejdw | Unicycling | 12 | November 2nd 07 05:57 PM |
Tdf 'live' Heart rates | cupra | UK | 2 | July 18th 07 12:55 AM |
Pedaling rates | Ron Graham | UK | 17 | February 3rd 07 05:52 PM |
decrease of heart rates | le-sheq | Techniques | 4 | February 28th 06 11:33 PM |
Heart rates. | Simon Mason | UK | 0 | January 21st 06 07:45 PM |