Recumbent Accident Rates?

On Thu, 5 May 2011 09:07:56 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote:

Sorry, but no [...]

Apparently, you have some axe to grind here. Did your parents force
you to wear a helmet? Were you sexually abused by someone with a
bicycle helmet?

What's the deal? Why the literally *thousands* (yes, plural) of
postings about bicycle helmets??? It's obviously a hot button of
yours; however, it's not such for me.

You see, I *know* that I won't convince you, so I'm not even going to
try. That's a waste of my time. Since I acknowledge that, please
know that *I* have come to a different conclusion.

I say: let us accept our unique positions. I will not try to change
your deeply held beliefs.

Go in peace.

On Wed, 4 May 2011 21:40:21 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Chalo
wrote:

Yep, he's snookered too. If he were as scrupulous about the data in
prescribing helmets as he seems to think doctors are when prescribing
drugs, he'd see that large-scale data demonstrate that cycle helmets
do not pass the FDA's "safe and effective" standard.

Like sugar pills, bicycle helmets are safe but ineffective. But where
sugar pills have a placebo effect, bicycle helmets induce risk
compensation. Not a good deal!

I never mentioned drugs of any sort. Please restrict your rebuttal to
that which I actually said.

No study has ever shown that "bicycle helmets induce risk
compensation" ... that's an absurd statement that is simply
unsupportable by current data.

I said that tobacco use has never been shown to *cause* health
problems by experimental method. I say this because there has never
been such an experimental study... there never will be, either. There
will never be such a study of helmets, period.

I doubt that you'd ever get a serious helmet study funded because, to
most people, it's as obvious as gravity, so why spend millions proving
the obvious?

I can point to the seatbelt debate on the auto groups, life jackets on
the boating groups, and gun safety devices on the gun groups...
they're all the same... another tempest in a teapot where the answer
is obvious to anyone outside the debate.

I am of that group; to me, it's a done deal.

On Thu, 5 May 2011 08:47:15 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote:

Why do people keep promoting an ineffective solution to a largely
nonexistent problem?

Obviously, with over 2,000 postings, you really care.

I don't know why you're preaching this like some new religion. I
assure you that *I* don't care what you wear... it's *your* head. If
your actions endangered others, I'd get involved; however, as it is, I
don't see it as any of my business.

Go in peace.

On May 5, 4:28*pm, Tom Lake wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2011 09:07:56 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank

Krygowski wrote:
Sorry, but no [...]

Apparently, you have some axe to grind here. *Did your parents force
you to wear a helmet? *Were you sexually abused by someone with a
bicycle helmet?

What's the deal? *Why the literally *thousands* (yes, plural) of
postings about bicycle helmets??? *It's obviously a hot button of
yours; however, it's not such for me.

You see, I *know* that I won't convince you, so I'm not even going to
try. *That's a waste of my time. *Since I acknowledge that, please
know that *I* have come to a different conclusion.

I say: let us accept our unique positions. *I will not try to change
your deeply held beliefs.

No, Tom, my parents never forced me to wear a helmet. Bike helmets
did not exist until I was long out of my parents' control, legal or
otherwise.

I post about this issue because it's something I became interested in;
and, having become interested, I decided to learn about it (something
that's part of my nature, it seems); and having learned quite a lot, I
realized that the deeply held beliefs of helmet proponents were proven
false by available data and facts.

When someone enters the discussion and states things that I know to be
false, I point out the mistakes.

About accepting positions: I'll accept your right to wear a helmet,
just as I'll accept your right to wear purple riding shorts. And I
won't try to change your deeply held beliefs. I will, however,
counter any effort to spread misinformation to others.

- Frank Krygowski

On 5/5/2011 3:28 PM, Tom Lake wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2011 09:07:56 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
wrote:

Sorry, but no [...]

Apparently, you have some axe to grind here. Did your parents force
you to wear a helmet? Were you sexually abused by someone with a
bicycle helmet?

The truth is worth pursuing.

What's the deal? Why the literally *thousands* (yes, plural) of
postings about bicycle helmets??? It's obviously a hot button of
yours; however, it's not such for me.

Because cretins keep on posting ridiculous things such as "bicycle
helmets have been shown to prevent up to 85% of head injuries", which is
utter ********.

You see, I *know* that I won't convince you, so I'm not even going to
try. That's a waste of my time. Since I acknowledge that, please
know that *I* have come to a different conclusion.

Based on what data and analyses? Citations please.

I say: let us accept our unique positions. I will not try to change
your deeply held beliefs.

Frank Krygowski's position is not unique- any rational person who
studies the available evidence will come to a similar conclusion.

Go in peace.

Frank would rather go on a bicycle.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 5/5/2011 4:14 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[...]
I post about this issue because it's something I became interested in;
and, having become interested, I decided to learn about it (something
that's part of my nature, it seems); and having learned quite a lot, I
realized that the deeply held beliefs of helmet proponents were proven
false by available data and facts.[...]

What - you do not believe in the well proven fact that Magic Foam
Bicycle Hatsâ„¢ prevent up to 70% of *LEG* injuries? Heathen!

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Thu, 5 May 2011 14:14:54 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote:

No, Tom, my parents never forced me to wear a helmet. Bike helmets
did not exist until I was long out of my parents' control, legal or
otherwise.

I post about this issue because it's something I became interested in;
and, having become interested, I decided to learn about it (something
that's part of my nature, it seems); and having learned quite a lot, I
realized that the deeply held beliefs of helmet proponents were proven
false by available data and facts.

When someone enters the discussion and states things that I know to be
false, I point out the mistakes.

About accepting positions: I'll accept your right to wear a helmet,
just as I'll accept your right to wear purple riding shorts. And I
won't try to change your deeply held beliefs. I will, however,
counter any effort to spread misinformation to others.

Haha... you're too smart for me, Frank. I've been outed! I'm really
an Alien from Outter Space. I control you puny humans' thought
processes by transponders embedded in bicycle helmets.
BAWWWhahaha...

What's the deal with "purple riding shorts"? I haven't mentioned
them. Why bring up the color of someone's clothing?

Why do you think that *I*, with a paltry five or six postings about
bicycle helmets have "deeply held beliefs"? I said that I didn't
care. You are the one with about 2,340 or so postings to helmet
threads... I'd say that, compared to you, I'm pretty luke warm. I've
got a *long* way to go before I'm going to approach your record.

I suspect that the normal people on this group are getting tired of
this.

Bye, Earthling. But you *will* be refuted! Your children will wear
helmets, mark my words. They already wear seat belts... "click it or
ticket", huh, Frank?

On 5/5/2011 3:17 PM, Tom Lake wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2011 22:41:37 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tºm Shermªn™
" wrote:

The only studies that show bicycle foam hats to be effective in reducing
head injuries are case-(not so much)control. Whole population studies
show no statistically significant reduction in serious head injury or
fatality rates when bicycle foam hat usage increases.

Please define your terms. You will find that not all statistics
textbooks use consistent terminology.

A "case-control study" usually refers to a study of existing
conditions or data; you will frequently hear them called "post facto
studies" and "causal/comparative studies", also. The reason that
these are the only studies we have is because you cannot take human
subjects and study their ballistic characteristics by bouncing them on
the pavement; I expect it to remain thus. I mentioned tobacco: *all*
tobacco studies are post facto; it's nonsensical to propose taking a
population of non-smokers and making half of them smoke two packs a
day. The tobacco companies are equally derisive of this type of
study, BTW.

I see you throwing about the term "whole population study" as if it's,
somehow, superior to a post facto study. Basically, you get a "whole
population study" (whole-pop) when you follow a group of participants
over a period of time and the independent variable (helmet use, in
this case) is *not* under operational control; i.e. the participants
decide to which group they belong, not the researcher.

What you state is one of the faults in the case-control studies such as
Thompson-Rivara-Thompson, the source of the bogus 85% head injury
reduction claim used to support mandatory foam hat usage laws. The
children whose Lidditeâ„¢ parents made them wear foam hats had
significantly different demographics than the lidless children.

However, certain countries (e.g. Australia, New Zealand) have introduced
mandatory foam bicycle hat usage, enforced by traffic citations. Helmet
usage rates dramatically increased, but death rates due to head injuries
did not drop. Frank Krygowski has posted the citations many times.

A whole-pop is
just that: the group it studies is the only population to which the
findings apply. One other point: the term "statistical significance"
has no meaning in the context of a whole-pop. Essentially, you're
saying that the mean of the sample group is different from (or the
same as, in your case) the mean of larger population; however, in this
type of study, there *is* no sample of the larger population; although
incompetent researchers will sometimes try to generalize such studies.
This is why we have peer review to catch such nonsense.

Does not apply to the studies of death rates from head injuries while
cycling both before and after Lidditeâ„¢ laws were enacted by legislators
mislead by the foam hat selling funded lobbies (e.g. Safe Kids).

We could set the matter to rest once and for all by taking a random
sample of, say, 10,000 people; we will keep 5,000 of them bare-headed
(the control group) and place 5,000 in helmets (the treatment group) …
then we'll slam their heads into a solid object under controlled
conditions, say 3 meters/second or so.

15 meters/second would be a more realistic test.

If your sample is random, then
the findings will generalize; moreover, since the independent variable
is controlled, we can say the treatment *caused* any observed
difference in the two means or, perhaps, has no effect. Now, all we
have to do is figure out how to get it past the IRB!

No need, as wearing of foam bicycle hats has failed to show any real
life average benefit when the usage rates double or triple.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 5/5/2011 3:45 PM, Tom Lake wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2011 21:40:21 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Chalo
wrote:

Yep, he's snookered too. If he were as scrupulous about the data in
prescribing helmets as he seems to think doctors are when prescribing
drugs, he'd see that large-scale data demonstrate that cycle helmets
do not pass the FDA's "safe and effective" standard.

Like sugar pills, bicycle helmets are safe but ineffective. But where
sugar pills have a placebo effect, bicycle helmets induce risk
compensation. Not a good deal!

I never mentioned drugs of any sort. Please restrict your rebuttal to
that which I actually said.

No study has ever shown that "bicycle helmets induce risk
compensation" ... that's an absurd statement that is simply
unsupportable by current data.

Studies have shown that motorists pass closer to lidded cyclists than
those riding sans foam bicycle hat.

I said that tobacco use has never been shown to *cause* health
problems by experimental method. I say this because there has never
been such an experimental study... there never will be, either. There
will never be such a study of helmets, period.

Dr. Mengele, where art thou?

I doubt that you'd ever get a serious helmet study funded because, to
most people, it's as obvious as gravity, so why spend millions proving
the obvious?

As history shows, the "obvious" can be scientifically wrong.

I can point to the seatbelt debate on the auto groups, life jackets on
the boating groups, and gun safety devices on the gun groups...
they're all the same... another tempest in a teapot where the answer
is obvious to anyone outside the debate.

The answer is obvious to anyone who is rational and has bothered to
study the issue - bicycle foam hats provide bump and scrape protection,
but do not significantly reduce serious brain injuries and deaths.

I am of that group; to me, it's a done deal.

Why boast of your ignorance?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 5/5/2011 10:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On May 4, 6:19 pm, Tom wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2011 15:06:29 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Chalo

wrote:
In my observation, hand and wrist injures are relatively common in
headers off of normal bikes. Concussions really aren't.

Injuries are quite common in all forms of collisions. I've seen
injuries when an ice skater collided with a Zamboni. I did my
residency at Ben Taub in Houston and I saw lots of closed head trauma
from traffic mishaps involving all kinds of vehicles and concussions
really are common... half a dozen in a shift wouldn't be out of the
ordinary evening.

If you choose not to wear a helmet, that's your business; however,
please don't suggest that closed head injury from blunt force trauma
is rare because ERs see them like clockwork.

Based on the national data I've seen, bicyclists comprise less than 2%
of the serious head injuries in the U.S., and less than 1% of the
fatalities. The brain injury specialists with whom I've discussed
this have agreed that their experience in their individual practices
match those numbers. Sounds like your experience in Houston is
similar.

It also seems that ordinary bicycling (i.e. not racing, not gonzo off-
road riding) is no more productive of serious head injuries than
things like walking for transportation, jogging, etc.

And it seems that there never was much association of bicycling and
head injuries until manufacturers had a product to sell.

That product has been sold widely, and endlessly endorsed. Yet it
doesn't seem to have caused any improvement in the already rare
incidence of serious bike head injury.

Why do people keep promoting an ineffective solution to a largely
nonexistent problem?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.