|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a bicycle foam hat while riding a recumbent?
On 5/5/2011 6:24 PM, Tom Lake wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 18:07:45 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tºm Shermªn™ " wrote: Studies have shown that motorists pass closer to lidded cyclists than those riding sans foam bicycle hat. Dr. Mengele, where art thou? As history shows, the "obvious" can be scientifically wrong. 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. Why boast of your ignorance? Well, again, there simply aren't any data to support that. There aren't any to support that helmets *do* reduce closed head trauma, either because the research design, as you pointed out, does not allow such a conclusion. And of course "studies" have shown is not true. It's "study" not "studies" and calling it a "study" is a huge stretch. And even if it is actually true, and there's no evidence of it, the "study" did NOT show any increase in the accident rate by motorists passing closer. It has been my experience that the best way to "prove" something is to find what the person really believes to be true. Remember the "proven" weapons of mass destruction in Iraq back in 2002... what ever happened to them? Sadly, "following the tribe" has replaced analyzing evidence, and this is very much the case with the AHZs. |
Ads |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a bicycle foam hat while riding a recumbent?
On 5/5/2011 6:54 PM, Tom Lake wrote:
Sheese... did they quit teaching basic research methodology to undergrads? Back in 1970 (when I had to walk to school... two miles... ) it was required core. I took it in my junior year, I recall. Did you know that studies have shown that virtually *every* sentence citing: "Studies have shown..." is utter nonsense. That's been proven, you know! I'm not sure that he doesn't understand that his "research" is flawed (or non-existent). The problem is that there is no research that supports his position, so he makes it up. Be especially careful when you see the phrase "studies show" without any mention of the study. You can be sure that you're about to see something this has no supporting evidence. Also be careful about what some people believe constitutes a "study." One of my favorites is covered in Myth 8 on the web site: Myth 8: Studies show that when helmets are mandated bicycling rates fall by 30%. Fact 8: One group in Australia counted the number of cyclists on the one day of the year before and after a helmet law went into effect and claimed that they counted 30% fewer cyclists. While any statistician would laugh this study off because of its methodology, this “study” has taken on a life of its own among those opposed to helmets. In fact, the group conducting the study intentionally left out large numbers of cyclists going by, claiming that they were part of a “bike rally” and hence should not be counted. Also never mentioned is that future counts showed that the number of cyclists quickly went back up to the pre-law level (or course the level never went down 30% to begin with, if it went down at all). It's junk science and junk statistics at its worst. Anytime you see the 30% number used on a web site opposing the use of helmets, you can be pretty certain that the rest of the material on the web site is equally flawed. In fact, every study shows that cycling rates have increased after helmet laws. But there is no proof that the helmet law was the cause for the increase. One could create several reasons why an mandatory helmet law could possibly be the cause of the increase, but that would be pure speculation. There could be multiple causes for increases and decreases in the number of cyclists on the same month and day one year apart. Weather, a large change in the price of fuel, mass transit issues, etc. A statistically sound survey would do daily counts over much a longer period of time. When someone incorrectly claims that there was a decrease in cycling following the adoption of a helmet law, and claims that the helmet law was responsible, they're beginning with a false premise, then speculating as to how something that didn't happen was caused by the new law. |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a helmet while riding a recumbent?
On May 8, 3:03*am, James wrote:
On May 8, 8:21*am, Frank Krygowski wrote: My riding tends to be reasonably cautious. *That is, I've never been one for trying to see how fast I could take a curve. *I've exceeded 50 mph only once on a bike. *I long ago gave up really scary mountain biking. *I seldom ride when roads are icy or really snowy. *I watch pavement conditions like a hawk. It must be horrible to ride with such constant fear, Frank. :-) And yet, James, you were the one going on and on about how dangerous it was in _your_ city, all the close calls you have, how nasty it is to ride near cars, how many of your riding buddies have crashed, etc! I was the one saying I just don't have many problems on the road. Go figure! - Frank Krygowski |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a bicycle foam hat while riding a recumbent?
On May 9, 10:17*am, SMS wrote:
Be very careful about those people that misuse whole population studies with claims that they are inconclusive because out extenuating factors, because often those extenuating factors are things they made up out of thin air. For example, there is absolutely _no_ evidence that cycling rates fall after helmet laws are introduced, but that does not stop the birther-like claims that the only reason that whole population studies show a decrease in injuries and fatalities is that cycling rates went down. SMS has an odd habit of refusing to look at any data, then claiming that "There is absolutely no evidence..." It's like a little kid closing his eyes and pretending it makes things go away! :-) Here's just a little of the available data showing how helmet laws discourage cycling: http://www.cycle-helmets.com/bicycle_numbers.html - Frank Krygowski |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a helmet while riding a recumbent?
On May 8, 1:29 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
I rode and raced without a helmet at various times .. and yes, I did not die of a head injury. Not surprising. We had over 100 years of bike racing without helmets, with fatal head injuries always being extremely rare. Think of the tens of millions of miles ridden in the Tour de France since its inception. IIRC, there were a total of three deaths. One was drug- induced heart failure. One was due to head injury (sliding into a concrete post at a speed far beyond helmet certification standards), one possibly due to head injury (falling into a ravine, ditto). There would probably be more head injury fatalities if all those racers had walked the course! I wonder how many current racers are baffled by photos like these: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...da_1974_WK.jpg How did those guys survive?? http://www.topfoto.co.uk/gallery/tou...es/ppage13.htm http://www.topfoto.co.uk/gallery/tou...es/ppage15.htm http://www.topfoto.co.uk/gallery/tou...es/ppage20.htm I also admit that my mental processing speed hs decreased as well as visual acccuity. I just transitioned off skis and back on to my bike and was descending Newberry the other day, and realized my descending skill were woefully rusty.http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianellin/3433416816/ That's about a 15% grade. At the bottom of that picture and out of the frame is a tight right hand turn with lots of gravel. I got scared of wiping out on gravel, took the turn wide and just about got smacked by a mini-van when I crossed the center line. Totally my fault and only illustrative because in 1973, I would have made the turn carrying twice as much speed, and the mini-van would not have been there anyway. All of my West Hills routes are now choked with cars because of the way the urban areas have developed. Life is more dangerous than in 1975 due to increased traffic densities and my own decreased mental and physical abilities and the fact that I now ride in worse weather, being that in 1973, I lived in California. Using a comfortable and light weight helmet seems like a reasonable measure. I honestly think I'm safer, on a per-mile basis, than I was in '73. Back then, I was a novice adult cyclist (despite having lived on a bike as a kid and teen). I didn't have the knowledge or skills that I have now. The other factor is, I'm probably less prone to take risks now. While I was never much of a daredevil, there were things I did then that I'd pass on now. Fast, curvy descents would be one of them. Do helmets lead riders to be less cautious, for example to ride where they otherwise would not? Probably, but in itself that's not necessarily bad. It becomes bad only if the increase in risks they take exceed the increased safety provided by the helmet. Trouble is, the protection afforded by helmets appears to be quite tiny. One researcher on the topic said something like "A cyclist might be advised to wear a helmet, if he could pretend he didn't have it on." Be careful out there. - Frank Krygowski |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a helmet while riding a recumbent?
In article
, Frank Krygowski wrote: Not surprising. We had over 100 years of bike racing without helmets, with fatal head injuries always being extremely rare. Think of the tens of millions of miles ridden in the Tour de France since its inception. IIRC, there were a total of three deaths. One was drug- induced heart failure. Fail. Stop spreading that rumor. The death had nothing to do with drugs. Unfortunately everybody says so. He died because the race organizers severely restricted the amount of water a racer could have, and the racer died from dehydration. -- Michael Press |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a helmet while riding a recumbent?
On May 9, 4:31*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article , *Frank Krygowski wrote: Not surprising. *We had over 100 years of bike racing without helmets, with fatal head injuries always being extremely rare. Think of the tens of millions of miles ridden in the Tour de France since its inception. *IIRC, there were a total of three deaths. *One was drug- induced heart failure. Fail. Stop spreading that rumor. The death had nothing to do with drugs. Unfortunately everybody says so. He died because the race organizers severely restricted the amount of water a racer could have, and the racer died from dehydration. Really? That's the first time I've ever heard that version. Can you give the source? - Frank Krygowski |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a helmet while riding a recumbent?
On Mon, 09 May 2011 16:54:08 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Phil W Lee
wrote: Sure, but foam hats won't do it. Training stands a far better chance of actually making a difference. Coming down like a ton of bricks on motorists who kill or injure vulnerable road users, or imposing lower speed limits (and enforcing them) in areas of potential conflict between different types of road user even more so, but the motoring lobby don't like that. They'd rather blame the victims. The elephant in the room is that dragging around 2 tons of metal to (mostly) move one person small distances is bloody inefficient and unnecessarily dangerous to others, particularly if you don't have much higher standards of training. Then why not be truthful? When something like that is used for victim blaming, yes, it does. Woah, Phil... calm down, please. I'm on your side! I use *exactly* your arguments... OK, I clean up the loaded language a bit; however, I don't have any issue with your position at all! We need higher standards of training for drivers of these "tons of metal"... praise the Lord! Now, Phil... please take a chill pill and listen a moment: people will pay to hear what they really believe. That's a fact we're going to have to accept. If you're going to take the "critical mass" approach (do you have those morons in the UK?) then you will lose every funding initiative you float... it's a done deal! People believe that helmets work... whether this is a *fact* or not isn't the issue. You're talking about mothers and their children, here, Phil, and mothers tend to vote. It ain't about *facts*, Phil... it's about beliefs. |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Don't we need teflon-coated bullets?
On Sat, 07 May 2011 15:54:02 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech SMS
wrote: Most of us here have had them filtered out for so long that we only see their gems when a newbie falls into the trap of responding to them. There are. You should see ba.broadcast! For Usenet to retain any value at all you can't fall into the trap of letting those that get caught up in their own agenda dominate and destroy the group. You filter them out and you move on. You know, Mr. ... Scharf??? That's about the most intelligent posting I've seen yet. You see, I'm basically just on my way to Austrailia... kinda passing through, you know. I never said I was here to stay. This looks like a good time to seek my fortunes elsewhere. I think we've about beaten this dead horse into the ground... I doubt I have convinced anyone to wear a helmet; actually, I don't think I ever tried to do that. Bye. : Here, this is for you... :: What? A silver bullet? : Naah... some crap from a gumball machine; I don't need it. Hi-ho Silver... AWAY!!! |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Should you wear a helmet while riding a recumbent?
Tom Lake wrote:
On Mon, 09 May 2011 16:54:08 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Phil W Lee wrote: Sure, but foam hats won't do it. Training stands a far better chance of actually making a difference. Coming down like a ton of bricks on motorists who kill or injure vulnerable road users, or imposing lower speed limits (and enforcing them) in areas of potential conflict between different types of road user even more so, but the motoring lobby don't like that. They'd rather blame the victims. The elephant in the room is that dragging around 2 tons of metal to (mostly) move one person small distances is bloody inefficient and unnecessarily dangerous to others, particularly if you don't have much higher standards of training. Then why not be truthful? When something like that is used for victim blaming, yes, it does. Woah, Phil... calm down, please. I'm on your side! I use *exactly* your arguments... OK, I clean up the loaded language a bit; however, I don't have any issue with your position at all! We need higher standards of training for drivers of these "tons of metal"... praise the Lord! Now, Phil... please take a chill pill and listen a moment: people will pay to hear what they really believe. That's a fact we're going to have to accept. If you're going to take the "critical mass" approach (do you have those morons in the UK?) then you will lose every funding initiative you float... it's a done deal! People believe that helmets work... whether this is a *fact* or not isn't the issue. You're talking about mothers and their children, here, Phil, and mothers tend to vote. It ain't about *facts*, Phil... it's about beliefs. I never had a St. Christopher medal, nor a helmet, but the little gold graphic which reads "Genuine English Lightweight" has protected me from death (sadly, not from injury) for 40 years. Even when I was doing something stupid and probably deserved it. Now that I reflect on this, my bikes with "Made in Italy" graphics showed a similar level of protection. Dammit, those labels really work! -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unicycles and exchange rates | thejdw | Unicycling | 12 | November 2nd 07 06:57 PM |
Tdf 'live' Heart rates | cupra | UK | 2 | July 18th 07 12:55 AM |
Pedaling rates | Ron Graham | UK | 17 | February 3rd 07 06:52 PM |
decrease of heart rates | le-sheq | Techniques | 4 | March 1st 06 12:33 AM |
Heart rates. | Simon Mason | UK | 0 | January 21st 06 08:45 PM |