Bicycle accident = glad i had my Helmet on this time

On 09/08/10 11:42 AM, MikeWhy wrote:

First, you already insult my intelligence and sensibilities with your
denials and fact twisting without having to do so explicitly. Again, you
really do need to stand back and look at what message you're sending.
Even if I were sympathetic to your cause -- and I don't know if I am or
not, since you make clear only an unreasoning dislike of helmets --
there is absolutely no way I would stand to have you do my talking for
me. As it stands now, I am against MHL. However, I would sooner side
with them than see a single person misguided by your rants and
unnecessarily injured. In reality, there is little danger of it coming
to that. I don't even have to argue the points or debate their merits. I
only need to prod you just the slightest and watch you shred your
credibility.

The lack of credibility of people like Frank, Phil, etc affects all of
us, that's the problem.

The biggest reason why we've seen a lot of new helmet laws recently, for
both children and adults, is ineffective opposition to the laws when
public hearings are held. On one side you have safety experts, doctors,
nurses, and paramedics, showing up with a mountain of evidence on the
effectiveness of helmets, and on the other side you have people showing
up whining about driving helmets, and claiming, without any factual
basis, that a helmet law will reduce cycling rates by 30-50%. Who are
the politicians going to believe? Faced with choosing between the
testimony of medical professionals versus the testimony of what appears
to be a group of lunatics, they make the obvious choice.

To stop mandatory helmet laws we need to mobilize normal people, that
use facts and logic, to explain that while helmets reduce injuries in a
head impact crash, such crashes are rare and it should be left up to the
individual adult rider to decide the level of risk they will accept.
It's tougher to oppose helmet laws for minors, and it's probably better
to not go down that road.

"SMS" wrote in message ...
On 09/08/10 11:15 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:

In any case, Frank's "in a nutshell" contention is laughably ridiculous
unless in the past 25 years _nothing_ changed other than the rates of
helmet wearing. In reality, there are multiple factors besides the rate
of helmet usage that affect the rates of reported head injuries. Every
study, both whole population and ER, shows a significant protective
effect of helmets. But again, at least for the whole populations
studies, the reductions in injuries and fatalities could have been the
result of other factors than increased helmet usage.

Including the amount of humidity on Tuesdays.

It's like the example that you usually get in stats classes where they announced in the 50s that
flying in jets caused cancer. They didn't take into account the fact that most of the
people flying in those days were middle aged business men who tended to smoke a lot.
I don't know how true this "example" is but the point is valid in that you have to
have the correct universe of discourse (population) and you have to sample data other
then that which you wish to prove to find if there are any other relations in the sample.

On Aug 9, 3:38*pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:


It's like the example that you usually get in stats classes where they announced in the 50s that
flying in jets caused cancer.

Or it's like the early 1990s government statements out of Australia,
that their rigidly enforced, all ages MHLs had reduced cycling head
injuries by 30%.

But Robinson, in "Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet Laws," 1996,
Accident Analysis Prevention, vol 28, pp 463 - 475 pointed out that
there had been simultaneous installation of speed cameras and much
harsher drunk driving laws, which simultaneously produced similar
drops in pedestrian injuries; and that several surveys (NOT merely the
"one day, one survey" that Steve Scharf lies about) showed drops in
cycling greater than the drop in head injuries.

Seriously, Duane - why not track down that article and read it? Your
librarian can certainly get you a copy. It (and a few others) would
add greatly to your understanding of the issue.

- Frank Krygowski

On Aug 9, 2:15*pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:


But anyway, how would my case have been covered in the hospital ER's data
as I didn't go to the hospital ER? *

This is one of the fallacies of this whole data thing. *
You can't know how many people didn't get hurt.

This has been explained over and over and over, but I'll try yet
again.

First, you may be very special. In any large sample, there are
outliers experiencing completely anomalous effects. We can't say
that's not true of you - although it obviously can't be true of _most_
"my helmet saved me!" claims.

Why can't it be true? Because despite the volume of such claims,
there is no decent evidence of drops in head injuries.

And pay attention to the following, please: Drops in head injuries
per cyclist is how we WOULD tell about the missing injuries. Isn't
that obvious?

Now let's look back at that NYTimes article again:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html
The author's major point, not matter the distraction by the quoted
true-believers, is that data shows no drop in head injuries per
cyclist. In fact, nationwide data shows a definite rise.

Don't like the Times? Another better, more formal study that also
tried to spot the drop in head injuries was Scuffham, P.A. et. al.,
"Trends in Cycling Injuries in New Zealand Under Voluntary Helmet
Use," 1997, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol 29, No 1

This is the one where Scuffham (working for the agency that had
promoted the helmet law soon to take effect) was going to show that
the huge jump in helmet use due to pre-law promotion had already
worked wonderfully, by reducing the percentage of cyclists whose
hospitalizations were due to head injury. Think: If helmets had
prevented head injuries, then of those hospitalized, fewer would be
there due to head injury. (The "percentage" bit was to not be fooled
by the reduction in cycling caused by helmet scare stories.)

Scuffham's team, to his employer's chagrin, found absolutely no
benefit to helmet use. (He tried to cover this up in a later paper,
but his trick was exposed by other researchers.)

Read the articles. Your librarian can help you get the latter one.
These will help you understand.

- Frank Krygowski

On Aug 9, 2:42*pm, "MikeWhy" wrote:


First, you already insult my intelligence and sensibilities with your
denials and fact twisting without having to do so explicitly.

???

Again, you
really do need to stand back and look at what message you're sending.

The messages I'm sending are that bicycling is not so dangerous as to
require helmets, and that helmets have not worked as promised. They
are an ineffective solution to an imaginary problem.

I keep giving data proving those facts. The rest is discussion. Try
to calm down and discuss things rationally, please.

Even
if I were sympathetic to your cause -- and I don't know if I am or not,
since you make clear only an unreasoning dislike of helmets -- there is
absolutely no way I would stand to have you do my talking for me. As it
stands now, I am against MHL. However, I would sooner side with them than
see a single person misguided by your rants and unnecessarily injured.

If your missionary spirit moves you to prevent serious or fatal head
injuries, why not look to the non-bicycling side? In the US, there
are over 99 non-bicycling head injury fatalities for every bicyclist
head injury fatality. Even pedestrians are much more at risk.

Why harp on the tiny problem of bike head injuries? And if you
illogically choose to do so, why not attack the problem by means of
preventing accidents, rather than padding heads?

I'll remind you that MHL-promoter Crocker of Austin Texas was recently
shot in the foot by his own study's data, showing that alcohol is
correlated with bike head injuries, but lack of a helmet is not.
Seems you'd save more cyclists by adopting Carrie Nation's tactics
than by helmet promotion! (Same mentality, different mission.)

- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 22:53:27 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

This is covered in myth #29 at
"http://sites.google.com/site/bicyclehelmetmythsandfacts/".

My goodness, you *are* a desperate little obsessive, aren't you? Your
stock in Bell underperforming these days?

Apart from the value of his Bell stock, the credibility of the link he
provides is maybe just a little bit threatened by the fact that it
confuses Switzerland with Sweden ...

On 09/08/10 12:38 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:

I don't know how true this "example" is but the point is valid in that
you have to
have the correct universe of discourse (population) and you have to
sample data other
then that which you wish to prove to find if there are any other
relations in the sample.

Of course the other solution, which you see on some anti-helmet web
sites, is to intentionally use faulty data. After all, how many people
are going to learn the actual facts about the Australian "study" (to
call it a "study" is a real stretch!) of cycling levels following the
imposition of an MHL. Certainly those that endlessly quote it don't want
the facts to be out there. That's the problem with sites like
cyclehelmets.org, they prey on those that are incapable of the least bit
of critical thinking.

_One_ group in Australia counted the number of cyclists on the one day
of the year before and after a helmet law went into effect and claimed
that they counted 30% fewer cyclists. While any statistician would laugh
this study off because of its methodology, this “study” has taken on a
life of its own among those opposed to helmets. In fact, the group
conducting the study _intentionally_ left out large numbers of cyclists
going by, claiming that they were part of a “bike rally” and hence
should not be counted. Also never mentioned is that future counts showed
that the number of cyclists quickly went back up to the pre-law level
(or course the level never went down 30% to begin with, if it went down
at all). It's junk science and junk statistics at its worst.

A proper study would have counted the number of cyclists on several
different days before and after the law, and would never have
arbitrarily left out cyclists that went by. But when you're trying to
prove something that isn't true, you take liberties with statistics.

On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 22:39:19 +0200, Andrew Price
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 22:53:27 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

This is covered in myth #29 at
"http://sites.google.com/site/bicyclehelmetmythsandfacts/".

My goodness, you *are* a desperate little obsessive, aren't you? Your
stock in Bell underperforming these days?

Apart from the value of his Bell stock, the credibility of the link he
provides is maybe just a little bit threatened by the fact that it
confuses Switzerland with Sweden ...

Which I note has now been corrected in the past few minutes. From
which one can conclude that he wrote it himself.

In article ,
Phil W Lee wrote:

Michael Press considered Sun, 08 Aug 2010
17:05:44 -0700 the perfect time to write:

In article ,
Phil W Lee wrote:

Dan O considered Sun, 8 Aug 2010 09:36:27 -0700
(PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Aug 8, 9:23 am, Phil W Lee wrote:
SMS considered Sat, 07 Aug 2010 07:31:35
-0700 the perfect time to write:
You can view the current list of bicycle helmet myths and facts at
"http://www.cyclehelmets.org"

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I fixed that for you.

That's not too cool to modify attributed text - even with the "I fixed
that for you."

What is wrong with repairing something which is so obviously broken,
particularly when you state exactly what you re doing?

Complaining about it seems like something of a knee-jerk extremist
reaction.

Modifying text, then attributing it to somebody else
is out of bounds.

Which is why I modified it and POINTED OUT EXACTLY WHAT I HAD DONE.
Are you really as clueproof as scharf?

Do not change quoted text.
Sections 2.8 and 2.9.
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html#ss2.1

--
Michael Press

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 9, 2:42 pm, "MikeWhy" wrote:


First, you already insult my intelligence and sensibilities with your
denials and fact twisting without having to do so explicitly.

???

Again, you
really do need to stand back and look at what message you're sending.

The messages I'm sending are that bicycling is not so dangerous as to
require helmets, and that helmets have not worked as promised. They
are an ineffective solution to an imaginary problem.

And to what end? Why drag it beyond reason and logic to include NASCAR,
rugby, and every other frivolous distraction that enters your head? The
common man can pick up a helmet in a store, and see the obvious utility of
placing a layer of armor between his head and the pavement.


I keep giving data proving those facts. The rest is discussion. Try
to calm down and discuss things rationally, please.

You clearly haven't done that. The man in the store aisle holds in one hand
a lightweight, well vented helmet that costs not very much, and has obvious
utility to him. On the other, is rumor of a stack of numbers that makes no
sense to him, and the best explanation he hears is... Is what? That the
deaths and hospital visits have not declined with helmet use, and that this
hand waving will have to substitute for a clear measure of effectiveness?

"Don't these work?" he might ask you as he taps his fingernails across the
hard plastic shell. And what's your answer? That the numbers don't lie, and
the liars don't figure? You'd better hurry with a compelling believable
answer, because the next words from him will be "What are you selling,
anyway?"

At this point, you've lost him, because he'll next try on the helmet, snug
up the straps, and smack the hat with an open palm to test its
effectiveness. Do you have an answer for him?

Even
if I were sympathetic to your cause -- and I don't know if I am or
not, since you make clear only an unreasoning dislike of helmets --
there is absolutely no way I would stand to have you do my talking
for me. As it stands now, I am against MHL. However, I would sooner
side with them than see a single person misguided by your rants and
unnecessarily injured.

If your missionary spirit moves you to prevent serious or fatal head
injuries, why not look to the non-bicycling side? In the US, there
are over 99 non-bicycling head injury fatalities for every bicyclist
head injury fatality. Even pedestrians are much more at risk.

It might be that we differ only in how much value and stock we place in a
stack of statistics. I've beaten long odds and been crushed by favorable
ones. It's my own head that I'm interested in, no one else's. Your
statistics and counts not only don't address my head in particular, they
don't address anyone's head with any confidence or accuracy. If you have
something better than the meaningless hand waving and guesses at why your
numbers don't match, this would be a good time to present it.


Why harp on the tiny problem of bike head injuries? And if you
illogically choose to do so, why not attack the problem by means of
preventing accidents, rather than padding heads?

Tiny? As in not significant and not worthy of concern? Is that where you
want to take this?

I can forestall accidents to the extent that I can foresee them. With enough
time and enough preparation, I might be able to live entirely accident free.
So now it comes full circle. I can foresee that smacking my unprotected head
has no good outcomes. Doing what I can, I sometimes acknowledge my fragility
and put on the hat. Whatever your numbers might have to say, they say
nothing to me that can lessen even one moment's discomfort for having heard
them. The magic foam has a real chance of lessening the injury and ensuing
discomfort.

The safer-than-pedestrian statistics are non-starters. The statistics, if
that truly is what they say, are at odds with observable reality. Just
logically, bicycles take up more space than pedestrians, are less
maneuverable and less nimble than pedestrians, travel many times faster than
pedestrians, at the same time that their riders are less skilled and
practiced as pedestrians. To put it mildly, you have a mountain of
skepticism to overcome. You're starting firmly from the liars-figure stance
with that one.

I'll remind you that MHL-promoter Crocker of Austin Texas was recently
shot in the foot by his own study's data, showing that alcohol is
correlated with bike head injuries, but lack of a helmet is not.
Seems you'd save more cyclists by adopting Carrie Nation's tactics
than by helmet promotion! (Same mentality, different mission.)

You never did answer about what you thought of Cavendish's finish line crash
in the TdS. I'm wondering if you blocked it out entirely as inapplicable, or
somehow rationalized away the severity of the outcome without helmets.