Lies of the AHZ 1: Confounding factors

The AHZ (anti-helmet zealot) Frank Krygowski
wrote:

the study fail[s] to properly account for confounding factors. *

This is code for mangling the data through rosetinted glasses until it
suits Krygowski's purposes -- and then he still lies about it, as he
lied about the South Australian and Crocker studies.

(Or
in Jute's favorite study, make absolutely no attempt to account for
confounding factors - the epitome of incompetent analysis.)

Krygowski has already been given the opportunity to present some
confounding factors to consider. He incompetently presented only two,
drunks without helmets and scofflaws without helmets. They were
supposed to confound this observation from the NY compilation:
• only 3% of fatalities wore a helmet whereas 13% of the non-fatally
(but seriously) injured wore a helmet

How can statistics about drunks *without* helmets and scofflaws
*without* helmets confound cyclists who survived *because they wore
helmets*?

Riddle me that.

So Krygowski knows there are no confounding factors. I have told him
so most pointedly and repeatedly. IN SHORT, ONCE MORE KRYGOWSKI LIES
THROUGH TEETH, KNOWING THAT HE LIES.

Krygowski is of course welcome to think up more confounding factors,
and I'll consider them too.

That's code for: And once more I'll make Krygowski look like the fool
he is.

Andre Jute
Let the utopia of reason roll into even cycling

On 9/2/2010 7:18 PM, André Jute wrote:

blah blah blah trimmed [1]

[1] For André Jute and Michael Press, this is NOT a quote of previously
posted text.

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

In article ,
Tom Sherman °_° wrote:

On 9/2/2010 7:18 PM, André Jute wrote:

blah blah blah trimmed [1]

[1] For André Jute and Michael Press, this is NOT a quote of
previously posted text.

LOL!

--
That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo.

On 9/2/2010 9:54 PM, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Tim McNamara wrote:

blah blah blah trimmed [1]

[1] For André Jute and Michael Press, this is NOT a quote of
previously posted text.

ENGLISH:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/luddite


Liddite (sic) - A person who believes a expanded polystyrene bicycle
foam hat offers substantial protection against traumatic brain injury.

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

On Sep 2, 9:59*pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
On 9/2/2010 9:54 PM, Jobst Brandt wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:

blah blah blah trimmed *[1]

[1] For André Jute and Michael Press, this is NOT a quote of
previously posted text.

ENGLISH:

*http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/luddite

Liddite (sic) - A person who believes a expanded polystyrene bicycle
foam hat offers substantial protection against traumatic brain injury.

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

What Frank K. was talking about in "confounding factors" was not also
correlating other injuries. For instance in the now widely discredited
Australian "study" that the "85%" claim is pulled from going back to
the raw data there was also a 67% reduction in knee injuries
immediately after the helmet law was enforced. Can anyone believe that
wearing a styrofoam hat will prevent any kind of leg injury? Or did
they have a sharp reduction in the numbers of cyclists, to the point
that there were far fewer wrecks for several weeks until large numbers
of helmets became available?

Having made that point, I wear a helmet every time I ride, not just
your average "bicycle helmet" but a full-face Downhill MTB helmet. I
wear this helmet even in the 100+F temperatures we get in TX summers,
because when I had my wreck the last impact I had was hitting the road
face first and getting pieces of your face sewn back on is very
uncomfortable during the healing process, all those nerves knitting
and whatnot. I wear the full-face to give me a slight chance of
avoiding a repeat of that injury.

Helmets and gloves are about the only PPE we have as cyclists to
protect us in the case of a wreck. Do I think everyone should wear a
helmet? Yes. Do I think that helmets should be made mandatory by law?
Nope. The current standard of protection (the CPSC test) is too low to
protect in wrecks with motor vehicles, which is the major source of
cyclist fatality on the roads. The CPSC standard only protects up to a
12.5 MPH impact, or about the speed of an adult's head if that adult
were to fall over at a standstill and hit his/her head on the curb.
The helmet is completely "used up" and no longer protective against
impact injury by 20 MPH. Most motor vehicle wrecks involve much higher
speed than that. My wreck the motor vehicle that hit me was doing
45-65 MPH with the higher probability being placed on the higher end
of that scale. I survived not because I was wearing a helmet, but
because all the head impacts I had were glancing blows that were
within the protective limits of the helmet I was wearing, more or
less. At least one was high enough that I had some brain damage, that
might have been the one where my face hit the road, or it might have
been any of the 5 other impacts recorded in the the helmet's
structure, or even the cumulative effect of all those impacts in such
a short time. Who can tell? But the important part is that the helmet
was well past its limits as a protective device, and that is true in
most wrecks involving motor vehicles.

Bicycle helmets are not motorcycle helmets, and the levels of
protection afforded by one should not be used as validation for
mandating the use of the other.

On Sep 3, 8:37 am, Opus wrote:
On Sep 2, 9:59 pm, Tom Sherman °_°



wrote:
On 9/2/2010 9:54 PM, Jobst Brandt wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:

blah blah blah trimmed [1]

[1] For André Jute and Michael Press, this is NOT a quote of
previously posted text.

ENGLISH:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/luddite

Liddite (sic) - A person who believes a expanded polystyrene bicycle
foam hat offers substantial protection against traumatic brain injury.

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

What Frank K. was talking about in "confounding factors" was not also
correlating other injuries. For instance in the now widely discredited
Australian "study" that the "85%" claim is pulled from going back to
the raw data there was also a 67% reduction in knee injuries
immediately after the helmet law was enforced. Can anyone believe that
wearing a styrofoam hat will prevent any kind of leg injury?

Well, actually, since you ask, and speaking from considerable crashing
experience, I have posited that in a crash, what with the tumbling and
tucking and rolling and what not - trying to go with the flow as
energy is dissipated - having a helmet on could make you less
concerned with protecting your head from every little bump and scrape,
and therefor conceivably allow less awkward tumbling and potentially
avoid e.g. a broken leg.

Not that this is likely to be statistically significant or noticeable,
but that's not what you asked.

(BTW, and with no offense to anyone, I'm not sure Australia is a real
place ;-)

snip


Bicycle helmets are not motorcycle helmets, and the levels of
protection afforded by one should not be used as validation for
mandating the use of the other.

Hmm... well, *most*, though not all, of the crash experience I mention
above is from motorcycle racing, and yes, the helmets are quite
different, but my current bicycle helmet is way more like the
motorcycle helmets that I used to wear than typical bicycle helmets
today. I wish they still made better hard shell helmets for
bicycling.

I'm not aware of anyone here advocating mandatory helmet use - except
maybe Andre, but I simply haven't been reading all of that stuff,
so...

Dan O wrote:

I'm not aware of anyone here advocating mandatory helmet use - except
maybe Andre, but I simply haven't been reading all of that stuff,
so...

Not me either, Danno. That's a straw man erected by the anti-helmet
zealots, that anyone who publishes honest data about cycling
fatalities and injuries is thereby promoting a mandatory helmet law.
My sole interest lies in publishing honest data to stop people like
Krygowski lying, to help cyclists unconfuse themselves in order to
make their own decisions. I have not told people to wear a helmet, or
to stop wearing one. I have not recommended a mandatory helmet law or
rejected a mandatory helmet law. I provide quality information and
others can make up their minds. That is all. It's a social service I
perform because I believe in free speech and high quality information
free to all as bulwarks of democracy and liberty. The "troll"-shouters
and other mouth-foamers demanding unearned "respect" (i.e. obeissance
to their prejudices) have a different idea of who should be allowed to
possess knowledge, or deliver knowledge, because knowledge is power
over others. Me, I give it away while they want to hug it to them.

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
The AHZ (anti-helmet zealot) Frank Krygowski
wrote:

the study fail[s] to properly account for confounding factors.

This is code for mangling the data through rosetinted glasses until it
suits Krygowski's purposes -- and then he still lies about it, as he
lied about the South Australian and Crocker studies.

Maybe he can get some stimulus booty to produce a play about it:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...#ixzz11WvcLjrP

Bill "link says it all" S.