#171
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 12:35:01 +0000, Tony Raven
wrote: wrote: Who ever said it was a life saver in "all" situations? Got a source for that or is it some fantasy of yours? I've never heard anyone silly enough to make that claim. So why are you red herring it? Dorsch comes close with 90% of all fatalities saved by helmets. TRT 1989 is close on his heels with 88% of brain injuries. coming close is not the same. Do you always make such grandiose overstatements? Cook and Sheik recently published a paper (Inj Prev 2003; 9: 266-267) on the protective effect of helmets. They subsequently accepted they had made a mathematical error in their data analysis which when corrected meant that helmets reduced head injuries by 200% (i.e. every helmet worn prevented two head injuries). Despite this result being nonsensical they stood by their study conclusions that helmets reduced head injuries and refused to accept that there must have been other confounding factors involved. One can only conclude that they believe helmets save lives in double "all" situations. Nice try. Failed again. Raleigh Cycles claim on their website "Always wear a Helmet, as this will prevent brain damage if you take a nasty fall." http://www.raleighbikes.com/knowledge/index.html?sub=3 under essential equipment. WOW. Even the helmet manufacturers don't say this. Even self proclaimed "helmet expert" Steven Scharf's pro-helmet site says: "The two biggest negative aspects of helmet promotion are the following: 1. They cause uninformed people to believe that cycling is an inherently dangerous activity. I doubt that is entirely the result of "promotion" bacause the usual person an uniformed cyclist deals with that has an "expert" status is bike shop personnel. My perspective on why I wear a helmet is that, sooner or later, you will hit the ground. There are few things there softer my head. I'll probably miss those. 2. They cause uninformed people to believe that helmets will mitigate all of the dangers that do exist." Again, the bike shop people have a lot to fo with this, not just promotion. My mother's neighbor went to buy a bike for her kid. They did NO looking at bike mags or anything else, saw a LBS and went right there. Kid wears a helmet. No promotional impact at all. The LBS, period. jim |
Ads |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 14:26:21 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 00:05:18 -0800, said in : Given that it has been shown that helmeted cyclists take more risks and are more likely to hit their heads in the first place, that is moot. But the point is, nobody has ever said "wear a helmet, it might save you from a minor graze!". The zealots all claim that a helmet could Save Your Life[tm] or prevent serious injury. This is at odds with the observed facts, and indeed with the standards to which they are tested. And the zealots on the other side do not do the same? What a crock of bs. Both sets of zealots are equally guilty. As far as I know there are very few anti-helmet zealots. I know maybe two or three people who are actively anti-helmet. I suppose you could describe Tony and me as zealously sceptical, in that we require that those proposing an intervention demonstrate a credible evidential basis for it. A zealot is a zealot is a. . . There are enough on either side to make everyone in the middle. Nice polite way to obfuscate your position. Unless I have missed it, you have posted 100% against helmets. That is what you are. What is clear is that increasing helmet use is strongly correlated with reducing numbers cycling, and injury rates reduce more or less with the inverse square of numbers cycling. Given that only 30% of cyclist hospitalizations are for head injury (the same proportion as for pedestrians, by the way), helmet promotion looks like a particularly bad idea! Especially since these days it dominates the "cycle safety" agenda to an extent which is out of all proportion to the merit of helmets. I'd go as far as to say that most people only know two things about bike safety, and they are both wrong. Right, another pile of BS. The anti-side is just as capable of ignoring interveining varialbes and of using them as the opposed group is. Noted that you lack any balance on tis and use it to slam that which does not agree with oyu while ignoring it where it supports you. Sorry? What is BS? I can cite evidence for everything I said. But you are missing the point: the default is to be sceptical. You have reversed that, a fault common to many helmet enthusiasts when faced with conflicting evidence. What evidential basis do you have for asserting that helmets have any measurable effect? And are you as equally skeptical of those saying helmets do not work? Your posting thus far indicate you are not. You accept them carte blanc. Goes directly to a point I made, people with positions see everything that supports them and ignores or bafflegabs away anything that goes against their position - just as you have done. Again, you are missing the point. The whole helmet movement is an example of precisely the problem you describe. Go and read the most widely-cited helmet paper in the world, and the other work published by the same authors in the two years before and after, if you don't believe me. See if you can account for Frederick P Rivara's mysterious use of a high assumed wearing rate to "prove" helmets work and a vastly lower rate in the *same* population at the *same* time to "prove" the need for compulsion. I made the point. You are a perfect example of it. You have citred all anti-helmet information, no pro-helmet information as far as I remember. Nice that you point ONLY at the pro-sdie while denigrating their behavior that is equally found in the antis. You don't seem to be familiar with the evidence which underpins your position! We already have a substantial body of evidence from whole populations and time series, including the largest study ever, all of which suggest that helmets are essentially irrelevant. And we have a body of research of a type which is known to be often wrong and inherently prone to bias, which suggests that they work to a quite remarkable degree. So what happens? Zealots like you stand there demanding ever more proof from sceptics. Tell me this: have you ever read the leading pro-helmet papers? I note that you are incapable of accepting that you are a zealot yourself. Interesting - your blindness and delusion that you are not. I have no problem admitting that I am zealous for an evidence-based approach, thanks. I also have no problem referencing what I say. I have read and have copies of most of the major studies. You are an anti-helmet zealot. 100% of what you have posted is anti-helmet. You say you are skeptical, but that is a lie. You are 100% dyed in the wool anti-helmet in your rhetorci. But you are still reversing the burden of proof. You clearly have no conception of how shoddy the evidence is which underpins your position. You would not accepot any evidence that runs counter to your position. Your posting and dismissals have proven that. Actually my helmet research library includes around 900 documents at present, but some of these are abstracts and summaries of others. IU am impressed, but given the characteristics you have displayed, you would probably deny anything that definitevely happened right in front of your own nose and call it mere chance. Pointless evasion. I have read the research and *radically changed my position* as a result. Which should tell you something. I have also been involved in many discussions with True Believers, including demonstrating to one campaigning body that the 85%/88% figure is entirely indefensible. They continue to use it. Which should also tell you something. True fact, not pointless evasion. Can you prove that previous position of yours with any publishing anywhere in the public where you have supported helmets? Otherwise, your claim cannot be substantiated. Helmets are promoted because they will Save Your Life[tm]. External evidence proves this claim is false. Other evidence proves they do. You denigrate them, why should I not be afforded the same coutesy? Have you double standards? Which evidence in particular proves that a helmet could save your life? Cite. I've not made any claims about saving lives. You have seen in the other posts I have made the pro-studies and you have immediately denigrated them. You are anti-helmet in your postings, period. You have to lie about that by saying "skeptical." BS, you are anti-helmet. As far as the rest of your questions, they are moot because you have shown you are incapable of accepting any evidence that runs contrarty to your position. That statement is self-evidently false, since my position has reversed in response to the evidence. Prove that previous position. Otherwise your statement is a lie and BS of which you have amply proven you do. Both sides have to furbnish proof. You automatically reject anything that is contrary to your position, Let me reciprocate by rejecting all your evidence. False. Actually I have come to reject much of what I previously accepted, based on a far better understanding of it, and on a close examination of a lot of conflicting evidence. You are clearly unfamiliar with the research, I am not and neither is Tony. Prove that previous position. Here is the bottom line, professional whatever you are, as long as helmets remain in their current configuration and level of safety, there will be no major changes in percentages of serious injuries, injures that have been mitigated to less than serious by helmet use, injuries that are so low that helmet or not would be irreloevant. This much is true: serious head injuries are rare, and helmets are not in any case designed to prevent them. Nobody seriously disputes that they prevent many trivial injuries. But laws and promotion campaigns are never founded on prevention of trivial injuries,are they? The only way to know if they work is to make a safer helmet. If it becomes accepted (I don't like mandated use), serious injury levels SHOULD decrease because of the increased safety. If it does not, then they don't work. If the injuries ride, they are detrimental. If they go down, helmets work. Actually what has happened over time is that helmets have got less protective. but what you say is false. Where helmet wearing rates have increased sharply over time, that will provide data on efficacy. It's just that it fails to support the contention that helmets do anything very much. Prove that they have become less safe. I have know of two or three standards - Snell, ANSI and something else I cannot recall. Umnless yo9u can prove they have lessed the requirements, I'll not take your word for this. No, what's happening is that you are moving the goalposts and reversing the burden of proof. Where is *your* proof, as the one promoting the intervention, that it has any measurable effect? Cite studies. Burder of proof exists for both parties. You simply reject anything that runs counter to your position, so why bother? Pete is doing exactly what I have said. Nice try to make it otherwise, but I think you missed the boat. Me? What have you advanced that is actually evidential? All you have done is to make unsubstantiated assertions. If you want to cite the research which underpins your position, you'll find I am more than happy to deal with evidence. That's how I converted from a helmet enthusiast to a sceptic in the first place. Right. More BS, Guy. I am questioning the evidence, how it was collected, how it is reported. You do not question any that is anti-helmet. 'Nuff said, you are anti-helmet and have been uless you can prove optherwise. jim |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 12:38:49 +0000, Tony Raven
wrote: wrote: Take a look at what I have posted about some of the research and the red flags that came up. You, supposedly, lo So much for your capabilities. I wonder how many bogus pieces of information have slid right past you. I have and my judgement is unchanged. You can Google my credentials; lets hear about yours. Regardless of your credentials, the items I pointed out evidently slid right past you. Those are definitely red flags. Or do you disagree with that and why? jim |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
|
#175
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
|
#176
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
|
#177
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
|
#178
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
Tony Raven wrote:
wrote: Regardless of your credentials, the items I pointed out evidently slid right past you. Do you have any research credentials? Or is that claim just another part of your bluster? So come on, put up or is anonymity the only way you can maintain the charade? etc, etc. Some time ago I started this thread asking for help with a problem about being sun-blinded at critical times of the day. I received back some useful replies. However since then my unfortunate use of the word 'helmet' has been latched onto with ferocity and the replies since then have been like viewing a pack of sharks in a feeding frenzy. We are getting down to the point where no one wins and everyone needs a hug. Gah! No one reply is going to change the world regarding opinion on helmet usage. Nor is a tonne of replies fired back and forth. It all steeps up into a fetid pile and to other ARBR browsers I think is now starting to smell just like manure. So how about we end it now and before any troll comes along attracted by the odour. Thanks for your replies and contributions to an interesting debate and to my original query also. |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 19:35:24 +0800, DD said in
: Some time ago I started this thread asking for help with a problem about being sun-blinded at critical times of the day. And boy are you ever sorry you asked :-D Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|