|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSILab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
On 4/11/2010 4:42 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
In , wrote: On 11/04/10 9:28 AM, Tim McNamara wrote: In , wrote: On 10/04/10 10:46 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: I remember the Bell Helmet ad of a little girl sitting on her bike wearing shiny new athletic shoes of some sort. The caption was "Does your child have $100 feet and a $10 head?" Except that Bell is making $10 helmets as well as $200+ helmets in their Giro line. Whooosh! Sooner or later, though, they will be hoist by their own petard in court. Just ask Riddell. Those 85% prevention claims will be tested. Bell has never claimed an "85% prevention rate" whatever that actually means. Of course no study ever claimed 85% in the way you're implying either. You're taking stuff out of context. As usual. Because taking things in context, and looking objectively, doesn't fit your agenda. The agenda belongs to the helmet industry which *has* been promulgating the notion that helmets reduce head injuries by 85%- in abeyance of any actual proof to back up that claim. Where ya been? One study showed _up to_ 85%, not an absolute 85%, and that study was not conducted by the helmet industry. Those damn statstically sound case studies. They always interfere with junk science. Oh, Steven, we've been down this road so many times with you and you just don't learn. Why go there again? Scarf lives in an alternate reality concerning bicycle foam hats and is immune to evidence - very similar symptoms to those that followers of right-wing talk radio exhibit. -- Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 |
Ads |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSILab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
On 11/04/10 4:36 PM, mike wrote:
snip No - it is "almost certainly" greater than 63% (at some unspecified confidence level). It is called statistics - and it doesn't always lie. This is true. You have to look at the big picture. Case studies report on the actual cases, but sometimes you have to read between the lines. Obviously those individuals whose helmets prevented and reduced injuries to the extent that treatment by medical professionals was unnecessary are not included in the results. It's sad to see people so invested in junk science. Every time you see someone use the "foam hat" schtick, it's an excellent indication that they're about to lie again. They have utter contempt for the concepts of facts, logic, science, and statistics because in contradicts what they want, but know isn't, true. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSILab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
On 4/11/2010 4:42 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: In , wrote: On 11/04/10 9:28 AM, Tim McNamara wrote: In , wrote: On 10/04/10 10:46 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: I remember the Bell Helmet ad of a little girl sitting on her bike wearing shiny new athletic shoes of some sort. The caption was "Does your child have $100 feet and a $10 head?" Except that Bell is making $10 helmets as well as $200+ helmets in their Giro line. Whooosh! Sooner or later, though, they will be hoist by their own petard in court. Just ask Riddell. Those 85% prevention claims will be tested. Bell has never claimed an "85% prevention rate" whatever that actually means. Of course no study ever claimed 85% in the way you're implying either. You're taking stuff out of context. As usual. Because taking things in context, and looking objectively, doesn't fit your agenda. The agenda belongs to the helmet industry which *has* been promulgating the notion that helmets reduce head injuries by 85%- in abeyance of any actual proof to back up that claim. Where ya been? One study showed _up to_ 85%, not an absolute 85%, and that study was not conducted by the helmet industry. Those damn statstically sound case studies. They always interfere with junk science. Oh, Steven, we've been down this road so many times with you and you just don't learn. Why go there again? Scarf lives in an alternate reality concerning bicycle foam hats and is immune to evidence - very similar symptoms to those that followers of right-wing talk radio exhibit. I know a few right wingers, none of whom wears a helmet. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI LabTests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
On Apr 11, 9:16*pm, * Still Just Me *
wrote: On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 17:10:48 -0700, SMS wrote: This is true. You have to look at the big picture. Case studies report on the actual cases, but sometimes you have to read between the lines. Obviously those individuals whose helmets prevented and reduced injuries to the extent that treatment by medical professionals was unnecessary are not included in the results. And therein lies the dilemma that those opposed to helmets don't like to acknowledge. Even with an accurate random population survey, analyzing whether or not an accident would have produced a head injury that was prevented by a helmet is troublesome. sigh This is an example of fantasy that just won't go away! Among the papers I've cited over 30 times is Scuffham et. al., "Trends in Cycling Injuries in New Zealand Under Voluntary Helmet Use," 1997, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol 29, No 1. I got my copy directly from Scuffham, but you can get one from the library. Once again: Scuffham and his fellow pro-helmet researchers tracked down essentially every hospital record of a hospitalized cyclist in the entire country for well over 10 years. That included a time period when helmet wearing rose from near zero to (for kids) about 90%. Almost all of that jump occurred in a period of less than three years. Their plan was simple: From the hospital records, determine the percentage hospitalized due to head injury. Of course, they anticipated seeing that percentage drop sharply when helmet use rose sharply. Why would it drop sharply? Read the following paragraph slowly, TWICE. Then think about it: _If_ helmets kept people from showing up in the hospital, it would be detected by the reduction in percentage hospitalized due to head injury. Seriously - Isn't that clear? If that's not clear, read it again. Ask for help. I can give numerical examples. But back to the study: unfortunately for helmet promotion, they found no such thing. They go into great detail in the paper about the many math tricks they tried to find evidence of those missing head injuries. No matter. Nothing they did could find any evidence of cyclists protected from hospitalization by their helmets. Again, for emphasis: The helmets kept NOBODY out of the hospital. If you don't believe this interpretation of the paper - that is, if you pretend I'm misrepresenting what they did and learned, PLEASE go to your librarian and ask to get a copy. Read it, look at the very clear graphs, and come back here and discuss it. Or at _least_ drop that Scharfian line of "reasoning," claiming phantom, undetectable benefits. They don't exist. - Frank Krygowski |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:36:07 +1200, mike
wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:44:09 -0700, SMS wrote: On 11/04/10 9:28 AM, Tim McNamara wrote: In , wrote: Those damn statstically sound case studies. They always interfere with junk science. Dear Steven, Er, last week, you wrote: " . . . so the 63-88% range given by Rivara and Thompson is almost certainly a bit lower than the actual reduction." http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...d1e21f302db047 So is it "almost certainly" greater than 88%? No - it is "almost certainly" greater than 63% (at some unspecified confidence level). It is called statistics - and it doesn't always lie. Mike Dear Mike, The alleged 63%-88% was already adjusted upward by Rivara and Thomson in their study, which showed that helmet use was also associated with a ~70% reduction in leg injuries--suggesting that the control in the case-control study was worthless. Scharf clearly claimed that this already-upward-adjusted range should have almost certainly been higher. Let's hope that even Scharf would stop at claiming 100% reduction. Cheers, Carl Fogel |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 17:10:48 -0700, SMS
wrote: On 11/04/10 4:36 PM, mike wrote: snip No - it is "almost certainly" greater than 63% (at some unspecified confidence level). It is called statistics - and it doesn't always lie. This is true. You have to look at the big picture. Case studies report on the actual cases, but sometimes you have to read between the lines. Obviously those individuals whose helmets prevented and reduced injuries to the extent that treatment by medical professionals was unnecessary are not included in the results. It's sad to see people so invested in junk science. Every time you see someone use the "foam hat" schtick, it's an excellent indication that they're about to lie again. They have utter contempt for the concepts of facts, logic, science, and statistics because in contradicts what they want, but know isn't, true. Dear Steven, Please look at some big picture and tell us where to find a 63% drop in an actual whole population after a mandatory helmet law increased helmet use from under 50% to over 90%. The news would be welcome. Cheers, Carl Fogel |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
In article ,
AMuzi wrote: Tom Sherman °_° wrote: On 4/11/2010 4:42 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: In , wrote: On 11/04/10 9:28 AM, Tim McNamara wrote: In , wrote: On 10/04/10 10:46 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: I remember the Bell Helmet ad of a little girl sitting on her bike wearing shiny new athletic shoes of some sort. The caption was "Does your child have $100 feet and a $10 head?" Except that Bell is making $10 helmets as well as $200+ helmets in their Giro line. Whooosh! Sooner or later, though, they will be hoist by their own petard in court. Just ask Riddell. Those 85% prevention claims will be tested. Bell has never claimed an "85% prevention rate" whatever that actually means. Of course no study ever claimed 85% in the way you're implying either. You're taking stuff out of context. As usual. Because taking things in context, and looking objectively, doesn't fit your agenda. The agenda belongs to the helmet industry which *has* been promulgating the notion that helmets reduce head injuries by 85%- in abeyance of any actual proof to back up that claim. Where ya been? One study showed _up to_ 85%, not an absolute 85%, and that study was not conducted by the helmet industry. Those damn statstically sound case studies. They always interfere with junk science. Oh, Steven, we've been down this road so many times with you and you just don't learn. Why go there again? Scarf lives in an alternate reality concerning bicycle foam hats and is immune to evidence - very similar symptoms to those that followers of right-wing talk radio exhibit. I know a few right wingers, none of whom wears a helmet. LOL! That cracked me up. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
In article ,
SMS wrote: On 11/04/10 2:42 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: Oh, Steven, we've been down this road so many times with you and you just don't learn. Why go there again? Still hoping that you'll open your mind and look at the facts. Hopeless it appears. The facts are simple, Steven; you're the one who refuses to look at them (as has been pointed out to you many times- the pattern is the same as with your silly notions about generator headlights). There's little if any evidence that helmet usage reduces the rate of death or disability from brain injuries associated with bicycle accidents. There are claims supported by inference, supposition and weak evidence. I think it'd be great if helmets really did reduce the risk of brain injuries by 85%. I still wouldn't force people to wear them, of course, but with good data people could make an informed choice. If you change your mind, click over to "http://sites.google.com/site/bicyclehelmetmythsandfacts/". It's debunked 28 myths so far. This another one of yours? It certainly sounds like it. Also, contrary to your opinion, "debunking" is not the same as saying "that's not true." Actual facts have to be provided not handwaving and hysterics as seen on the site you cite. A number of the references cited at the bottom have themselves been debunked. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:41:31 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote: On Apr 11, 9:16Â*pm, * Still Just Me * wrote: On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 17:10:48 -0700, SMS wrote: This is true. You have to look at the big picture. Case studies report on the actual cases, but sometimes you have to read between the lines. Obviously those individuals whose helmets prevented and reduced injuries to the extent that treatment by medical professionals was unnecessary are not included in the results. And therein lies the dilemma that those opposed to helmets don't like to acknowledge. Even with an accurate random population survey, analyzing whether or not an accident would have produced a head injury that was prevented by a helmet is troublesome. sigh This is an example of fantasy that just won't go away! Among the papers I've cited over 30 times is Scuffham et. al., "Trends in Cycling Injuries in New Zealand Under Voluntary Helmet Use," 1997, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol 29, No 1. I got my copy directly from Scuffham, but you can get one from the library. Once again: Scuffham and his fellow pro-helmet researchers tracked down essentially every hospital record of a hospitalized cyclist in the entire country for well over 10 years. That included a time period when helmet wearing rose from near zero to (for kids) about 90%. Almost all of that jump occurred in a period of less than three years. Their plan was simple: From the hospital records, determine the percentage hospitalized due to head injury. Of course, they anticipated seeing that percentage drop sharply when helmet use rose sharply. Why would it drop sharply? Read the following paragraph slowly, TWICE. Then think about it: _If_ helmets kept people from showing up in the hospital, it would be detected by the reduction in percentage hospitalized due to head injury. Seriously - Isn't that clear? If that's not clear, read it again. Ask for help. I can give numerical examples. But back to the study: unfortunately for helmet promotion, they found no such thing. They go into great detail in the paper about the many math tricks they tried to find evidence of those missing head injuries. No matter. Nothing they did could find any evidence of cyclists protected from hospitalization by their helmets. Again, for emphasis: The helmets kept NOBODY out of the hospital. If you don't believe this interpretation of the paper - that is, if you pretend I'm misrepresenting what they did and learned, PLEASE go to your librarian and ask to get a copy. Read it, look at the very clear graphs, and come back here and discuss it. Or at _least_ drop that Scharfian line of "reasoning," claiming phantom, undetectable benefits. They don't exist. - Frank Krygowski How about the FACT that people who are not injured generally don't go to the hospital? If they don't go to the hospital they are out of the count - right? The old addage, figures don't lie, but liars figure can come into play here. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
This is getting expensive (helmets) | Mike Jacoubowsky | General | 34 | December 16th 07 11:13 PM |
This is getting expensive (helmets) | Tom Sherman[_2_] | Recumbent Biking | 15 | December 12th 07 04:14 AM |
How about this bike? (was: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?) | Ken Aston | General | 20 | November 14th 06 05:14 PM |
How about a Marin bike? (was: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?) | Ken Aston | UK | 6 | November 9th 06 04:59 PM |
How about this bike? (was: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?) | Ken Aston | Australia | 3 | November 9th 06 02:23 AM |