A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI LabTests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 12th 10, 12:27 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Sherman °_°[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default 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
  #12  
Old April 12th 10, 12:36 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
mike[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 178
Default You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.

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
  #13  
Old April 12th 10, 01:10 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default 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  
Old April 12th 10, 01:47 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default 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  
Old April 12th 10, 02:41 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default 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  
Old April 12th 10, 03:17 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,934
Default 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  
Old April 12th 10, 03:20 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,934
Default 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  
Old April 12th 10, 03:28 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default 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  
Old April 12th 10, 03:40 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default 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  
Old April 12th 10, 03:42 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 445
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.