Recumbent Accident Rates?

On Sat, 7 May 2011 10:32:47 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech SMS
wrote:

You make the mistake of believing that because a double-blind study of
helmeted versus non-helmeted cyclists being subjected to precisely the
same crash does not exist that this is the same thing is the lack of
any scientific evidence. In fact, there is an enormous body of
scientific and statistical evidence that proves that bicycle helmets
are extremely effective in reducing the severity of head injuries in
head impact bicycle crashes.

I didn't say there wasn't any "evidence"... I said that there wasn't
any "experimental evidence". You're preaching your sermon to the
choir, dude! I can't prove gravity exists and neither can you... but
*I* won't leap off of any tall buildings with a single bound, thank
you very much!

OTOH, some people have told me that, if I really believed I could fly,
then I could fly.

I choose to decline that invitation. I also choose to wear a helmet
for similar reasons.

Frank, you're using the "Royal plural"; who, exactly is/are "we" and
"us"? Are you writing for an orginazation?

On Sat, 07 May 2011 17:46:22 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Phil W Lee
wrote:

You are the one who has been claiming that the volume of ammunition is
more important than it's quality.

In another post, you pointed out that if you find any example of
unreliability from any author, you exclude all of their work, and not
just the unreliable part.

So you should be in full agreement with the best way to regard your
input on this subject.

Do as you please, sir. You make your own decisions on that matter.

I'm saying that you should cease thinking of a study as "ammunition";
think of it, instead, as a data point. Look for a general consensus
to emerge. This is why chapter two of most studies contains a review
of the existing literature.

As an irrelevant side note: "it's" is a contraction of "it is"; write
that down.

On May 7, 11:05*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On May 7, 11:43*am, SMS wrote:



The problem with Frank is that he first decided that he was against
helmets then he went out and looked for data that supported his
position. Unable to find any statistically or scientifically sound data
to support his views, he decided on the approach of the birthers and the
global warming deniers, just make it up!

When confronted with the facts, that he actually knows to be true, he
retreats to the world of "driving helmets" and such.

Ah, Stephen, still posting absolute lies!

To review (not that it should be necessary): *I did not begin by
deciding I was against bike helmets. *In fact, I was once in favor of
bike helmets. *I wore one for almost every ride, and advised others to
do the same. *I bought the line that bicycling was a significant
source of serious head injury, and that helmets greatly reduced that
risk.

It was only after I began reading the research papers on the subject
(both pro and con), and digging for data on comparative risk, that I
changed my mind, based entirely on factual evidence. *I found that the
risk had been grossly exaggerated, the claims of efficacy wildly
overstated, and the specifications and certification tests of bike
helmets laughably inadequate.

Populaiton studies say nothing about whether a helmet is a smart
choice for an individual rider whose risk pattern may be different
from the norm, e.g., someone who rides fast or rides off road or who
rides in inclement weather including ice and snow or who rides in
close proximity to large numbers of other riders. A person may
perceive a risk that actually exists for him or her, and you cannot
assume that a person is being hysterical or helmet whore or whatever
without seeing that person's riding environment.

This is why population studies are meaningless to me in my personal
decision making -- except in terms of my injury reduction
expectations. I do not expect a helmet to save my life. However,
helmets have proven benefit in reducing scalp injury, certain upper
facial injuries and skull fractures, which are all costly to treat and
worth avoiding -- particularly for me. -- Jay Beattie.

On 5/7/2011 11:39 AM, Tom Lake wrote:

I'm saying that you should cease thinking of a study as "ammunition";
think of it, instead, as a data point. Look for a general consensus
to emerge. This is why chapter two of most studies contains a review
of the existing literature.

That's a good point, one that the AHZs will never understand.

Sometimes personal anecdotes are useful, but always look at who is
presenting them. When a person has a such long history of promulgating
information that he knows to be incorrect it's tough to take them
seriously on subjects where they might actually have something useful to
contribute. No one would think any worse of Frank if he were to simply
admit what he's been doing and promise to stop.

In article
,
Frank Krygowski wrote:

On May 7, 12:01Â*am, Tom Lake wrote:

If you can't take the whole corpus of any author's work, then don't
cite that author. Â*I won't cite an author for whom I must apologize!

:-) Well, so much for calculus, Newton's laws of motion, Newton's
work on gravitation, on optics, on fluid mechanics... need I go on?
The man was a big fan of alchemy, after all!

Lest anyone take away from this that Sir Isaac Newton
was not a practical man, he was made warden of the Royal Mint
where his chemical and mathematical knowledge enabled
him to rescue coinage from the brink of disaster,
and carry out the Great Recoinage of 1696. In recognition
of his achievement he was made Master of the Mint
at £1200 per annum.

--
Michael Press

On May 7, 2:10*pm, Tom Lake wrote:
On Sat, 7 May 2011 10:27:08 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank

Krygowski wrote:
work on gravitation, on optics, on fluid mechanics... need I go on?
The man was a big fan of alchemy, after all!

Sorry, your ':' at the beginning of a line screwed up my reader.

Hey! *Having looked over Scuffham, I think you may have a point.
There's something about that which fails my "sniff test". *It wouldn't
be the first time politics and money influenced research if what you
claim is true... it may be so. *I have seen that very dynamic in
action; I can cite examples; however, I'll spare you having to read
it.

I might criticize his first study on biased language; though... but,
yeah... he worked for people who had an interest in the outcome. *Been
there, done that! *I'm giving you that point, but drop Scuffham '95;
it's now worthless.

Back to Newton... have you, by any chance, seen his law of cooling?
It's something like: "The rate of heat loss of a body is proportional
to the difference in temperatures between the body and its
surroundings." (pasted, of course; however, believe what you want)

How do you explain the idea that "hot water freezes more quickly than
relatively chilled water" given a constant freezing temperature of
water? *I will be happy to point you to various web sites and
discussions of that idea.

Too bad Newton wasn't as smart as we are, huh?

Tom, I'm probably the only person writing here who has not only taken
about five courses in thermodynamics, but also taught thermodynamics.
I'm capable of discussing Newton, cooling, freezing water etc. till
the cows come home.

But I'm not going to follow you through yet another attempt to change
to an irrelevant topic.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 7 May 2011 14:28:01 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote:

Tom, I'm probably the only person writing here who has not only taken
about five courses in thermodynamics, but also taught thermodynamics.
I'm capable of discussing Newton, cooling, freezing water etc. till
the cows come home.

But I'm not going to follow you through yet another attempt to change
to an irrelevant topic.

Ok. so you've heard that stuff about how hot water freezes more
quickly than cold water?

Do you buy this explanation?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...hot_water.html

It seems to me that the usual separable differential equation does not
hold if that's so. I'm really curious, here. Help *us* out, OK?

On Sat, 07 May 2011 12:29:11 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech SMS
wrote:

That's a good point, one that the AHZs will never understand.

Sometimes personal anecdotes are useful, but always look at who is
presenting them. When a person has a such long history of promulgating
information that he knows to be incorrect it's tough to take them
seriously on subjects where they might actually have something useful to
contribute. No one would think any worse of Frank if he were to simply
admit what he's been doing and promise to stop.

Well, it's not really *about* helmets, is it? Every person has his
own schtick and, I guess, in RBT, it's helmets and Frank & Phil are
the apostles.

Over on the motorcycle groups, it's mufflers, FYI. Did you know that
mufflers *cause* traffic accidents? Yup. Studies have proven it's so
and I believe it; who am *I* to argue with scientific studies...
really? (Helmets are the second topic; mostly, it's mufflers.)

On the gun groups, it's teflon-coated bullets; everyone knows how
badly we need teflon-coated bullets... I hear cars pass 2.7 cm closer
to cyclists not carrying teflon-coated bullets!

On the dog groups, it's leashes.

Car/truck groups? Seat belts.

Rock climbing groups? Laws restricting setting pitons and epoxy onto
rock faces in the national parks.

I'm sure there's more.

On May 7, 10:24 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On May 6, 10:23 pm, Tom Lake wrote:



Actually, the word "unusual" isn't important at all; if you disagree
with my editing, then put it back.

Here's my statement, once again:
"Statistics can (and do) show that ordinary cycling does not impose
any
unusual risk of serious head injury, despite propaganda to the
contrary."


So the usual risk does not warrant the protection a helmet may
afford... to *you*.

Drop the blathering about hypothesis testing. We know about it
already. Instead, look for some data.

Tell us, for example, how bicycling and walking for transportation
compare regarding the number of serious head injuries per kilometer.
From what I've read, cycling is far safer in that regard.


Maybe for you. Maybe for people who don't ride bike anyway. Not for
me; this has been amply and consistently demonstrated over many, many
years. You may try to dismiss this with ridiculous qualifications
like "ordinary", "unusual", and "severe", or by implying that I am a
"clumsy" or "incompetent" cyclist, but the truth is that I relish bike
riding with a zest that is much closer to the edge than yours.

Tell us how bicycling compares with other activities regarding serious
head injuries per hour activity. From what I've read, it's not
significantly different than many things people do with no worry.


Regarding a precaution as worthwhile does not imply "worry".

Tell us how bicycling compares with other activities in head injury
fatalities per year. From what I've seen, cycling is fewer than 1%.


O% of my fatalities, actually (and/or maybe 100% - not sure about div
by zero on that).

Those are the points I was considering when I said that bicycling does
not impose unusual risk of serious head injury. I can post some
numbers, but you'd probably learn by digging them up on your own.

Frank, a "sceptic" doesn't spend his every waking hour posting about
bicycle helmets. That's called obsessive behavior.

That would be. But I don't know anyone who does that.


Well, between posting the same things over and over and over again,
talking and going to meetings and gathering data and giving it the
Krygowski categorization and supposedly studying and... can we
stipulate "zealous" - if not completely obsessed?

I do know people who have become interested in various topics, have
studied them rather diligently, and who now know much more than most
others. Many of those people take part in discussions on those
topics. It's not unusual. In fact, it's one of the important ways
that knowledge is disseminated.


And served with ample derision covered in smarmalade.