Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:54:00 -0800, SMS
said in :

As the author of _Econometric Modeling as Junk Science_ wrote: "How much
time should researchers spend replicating and criticizing studies using
methods that have repeatedly failed?

And since when did that ever stop a helmeteer form trying, and
failing, one more time, to repeat the 85% in the Seattle study? Oh,
but wait, the studies which support your prejudices are accepted
without question, aren't they?

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:54:00 -0800, SMS
said in :

As the author of _Econometric Modeling as Junk Science_ wrote: "How much
time should researchers spend replicating and criticizing studies using
methods that have repeatedly failed?

And since when did that ever stop a helmeteer form trying, and
failing, one more time, to repeat the 85% in the Seattle study? Oh,
but wait, the studies which support your prejudices are accepted
without question, aren't they?

Guy
--
No!!!
And you just don't listen. There is a whole host of folks who are
criticiszing the studies on both sides. You constantly keep throwing
out red herrings with great displays of frustration. However, you
continually mis quote and mis represent what others say.

Here it is Guy, Frank, Tony, whomever. I am not convinced helmets are
good. bad, or indifferent. Why, becasue I have seen no studies that
convince me of anything. There are lots of studies that "suggest"
conclusions that need to be properly studied.I do not defend bad
studies on any side of the issue.

Gary

Tony Raven wrote:
SMS wrote:

You simply refuse to understand that many of them _have_ looked in
detail at the "research" and understand it for the junk science that
they are.

Many here in uk.rec.cycling are trained scientists and engineers who
have looked at the data and changed our opinions on helmets over the
last couple of years, having been triggered into looking at the research
by the spectre of compulsion. Two years ago I was like most others; I
assumed that helmets would be beneficial. It was only when I started to
review the literature that I realised it didn't add up, as did quite a
few others at the time. Hence the formation of the cyclehelmets.org
site. The majority of people who wear helmets that I know or who ask me
why I don't wear one are unaware of and surprised by the research
evidence.

My situation is very similar. I was originally of the opinion that
cycling helmets would be of significant value and had been wearing one
since the introduction of the Bell Biker model around 1975. But after
seeing some of the helmet discussions I looked into the research in
more detail, particularly the widely cited Thompson/Rivara case control
study, and changed my mind on the subject. SMS is correct that a
fairly small sample can provide good data if the sample is "properly
selected" but the helmet case control studies like Thompson/Rivara fail
that test since the helmet users are self selected and are likely to
differ in numerous ways from the non-helmet group making the results
highly dubious. OTOH, the experience in New Zealand and Australia,
where substantial increases in helmet usage were not accompanied by a
reduction in the risk to cyclists has convinced me that the protection
offered against serious head injury is marginal at best.

James Annan wrote:
SMS wrote:

As gds points out, the retrospective population studies regarding
helmets are flawed. Studies done pre and post compulsion are especially
flawed, since compulsion introduces a whole new set of variables that
are not, and can not, be accounted for.

The fact that these hypothetical variables always mask or even outweigh
the "benefit" of a massive increase in helmet wearing is itself proof
that helmets have hardly any effect.

Two problems with that statement. First, these variables are not
hypothetical, if you believe the various papers written by the
anti-compulsion people. Second, those variables are what make
determining the actual effect of a helmet law so difficult.

If any entity ever decides to do a proper population based study of
helmet effectiveness, then it should be in a country without compulsion.
Until such a study is done, if ever, it's important to reject the junk
science on both sides of the debate, while accepting the raw data on
helmet effectiveness in accidents.

SMS wrote:
if ever, it's important to reject the junk
science on both sides of the debate, while accepting the raw data on
helmet effectiveness in accidents.

There is no such thing. Effectiveness is a construct derived from
analysis.

The raw data is: Number of people counted cycling (with associated
count methodology details).
Number of Head injuries and severity
Numbers of other injuries.

Now, you can take self selected subsets of that group, you can take the
whole group and you can ignore it all together, but you get no
information on effectiveness of any one parameter unless you do some
analysis on that data and that requires methodology. The quality of
that methodology is what is being discussed.

You have done nothing but bluster and hand wave. Would you care to
describe how the collected data can be used in a robust methodology to
give us a measure of helmet effectiveness? Or will you just carp, abnd
bluster adn stick your fingers in your ears and say 'nyah, can't hear
you' when someone asks you to stop prevaricatign and actually put up.

...d

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Said the man who works as a bike messenger despite thinking it is
deadly dangerous :-)

If I thought I was likely to die doing this
job, I would quit, fun as it is. However, I
understand that it is probable that I
will be injured again. Could happen any
minute. It will happen during one of the
short times when I have grown too comfortable
and forgotten about the danger. Hopefully
it will be the kind of injury I can recover from,
and not one that makes me wish I never
started riding bikes.

But I wouldn't worry about the veteran
bike messengers, who I believe have the
lowest accident/injury rate per hour or mile
of any population of cyclists. Compare,
for instance, to Moritz' survey of LAB members
with an average of 17 years riding experience,
which found them injuring themselves about
every 30,000 miles (iirc). That's roughly 2-3
times the accident rate of the old messengers I know.
Beginning riders wreck/injure themselves at
at least 10 times the rate of old messengers (Forester).

Don't worry about the guys who have gained
a respect for the danger of traffic through
hard-earned and often painful experience.
The ones I worry about are those who think
riding a bike in traffic is 'relatively safe,'
without having the experience to back it up,
much less the numbers.

To any beginners out there who have themselves
convinced that riding in traffic is 'relatively safe,'
I will say, It's not safe for you, dumbass. It's only
safe for those with a certain amount of experience.
The statistics reflect the relatively small amount of
cyclists who ride the vast majority of miles. These
are riders who already understand the danger
of traffic. Any beginner who rolls out with a
happy-go-lucky I am relatively safe attitude is
in for it. This is not Holland, dumbasses.

Of course I will be labeled a 'fearmonger' for
speaking the truth on this.

Robert
truthmongering in the USA

wrote:

The statistics reflect the relatively small amount of
cyclists who ride the vast majority of miles. These
are riders who already understand the danger
of traffic.

This is a very big problem when the various entities do their studies.
It's a very big variable that is invariably ignored.

Any beginner who rolls out with a
happy-go-lucky I am relatively safe attitude is
in for it. This is not Holland, dumbasses.

Ah, Holland. There should be a Usenet rule, similar to the Usenet Nazi
rule, that whenever someone comes out against helmets using Holland as a
justification, that the thread is over.

"SMS" wrote in message
...
wrote:

The statistics reflect the relatively small amount of
cyclists who ride the vast majority of miles. These
are riders who already understand the danger
of traffic.

This is a very big problem when the various entities do their studies.
It's a very big variable that is invariably ignored.

Any beginner who rolls out with a
happy-go-lucky I am relatively safe attitude is
in for it. This is not Holland, dumbasses.

Ah, Holland. There should be a Usenet rule, similar to the Usenet Nazi
rule, that whenever someone comes out against helmets using Holland as a
justification, that the thread is over.

That's twice you've requested that this thread be over. Yet you keep
posting...

cheers,
clive

wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Said the man who works as a bike messenger despite thinking it is
deadly dangerous :-)

But I wouldn't worry about the veteran
bike messengers, who I believe have the
lowest accident/injury rate per hour or mile
of any population of cyclists.

You believe? Wait a minute - aren't you the guy who's forever asking
for not only data, but all the details on how the data was collected?

Naturally, I'll expect you to meet your own standards now, and tell us
the injury rate per mile and per hour for "veteran bike messengers,"
with full documentation. ;-)

Compare,
for instance, to Moritz' survey of LAB members
with an average of 17 years riding experience,
which found them injuring themselves about
every 30,000 miles (iirc).

Something like that. Skinned knees mostly, remember?

That's roughly 2-3
times the accident rate of the old messengers I know.

Citation?

Beginning riders wreck/injure themselves at
at least 10 times the rate of old messengers (Forester).

You've alluded to this before, but I don't recall the details. What
exactly did Forester say, and how exactly did he determine it?

To any beginners out there who have themselves
convinced that riding in traffic is 'relatively safe,'
I will say, It's not safe for you, dumbass.

"Traffic" being defined how, again? Last time I pressed you for a
definition, you said "If there are any motor vehicles anywhere on the
road, it's traffic" ... or words to that effect.

IOW, riding on a wide road that's deserted except for you and one other
car passing the opposite way at 20 mph is riding in "traffic." So
beginners should be warned that even that is ... dangerous!!! wring
hands here

Somehow, I've never been terrified by that sort of situation. ;-)

Anyway, I await all the details to support the statements you gave
above.

- Frank Krygowski

SMS wrote:


Ah, Holland. There should be a Usenet rule, similar to the Usenet Nazi
rule, that whenever someone comes out against helmets using Holland as a
justification, that the thread is over.

I urge you to follow up on that idea of yours.

You're free to stop posting now. Really, we can get along without you!
;-)

- Frank Krygowski