| |
Main
Date: 26 May 2007 16:33:11
From: Michael Grillparzer
Subject: Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
|
Not a test to a scientific standard but interesting nonetheless:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3594A60E4D9A76B2&chanID=sa029
|
|
| |
Date: 28 May 2007 21:16:34
From:
Subject: Re: Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
|
On May 27, 9:20 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me > wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> >> Hey, I did a study, too. I found that if I drive or ride
> >> erratically, then cars and other riders and even pedestrians give me
> >> a wide berth. Therefore, EVERYONE SHOULD SWERVE AND WOBBLE
> >> UNPREDICTABLY; YOU'LL BE MUCH SAFER!
>
> > Another dodge. You claimed the paper has been discredited, but can
> > only offer your typical senseless drivel. Show us you're an adult and
> > describe why the author's findings should be discredited. Perhaps you
> > can write a letter to Scientific America describing why the findings
> > they published have been discredited.
>
> They did it for me. They put it under "JUNK SCIENCE".
>
> HTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> LOL
If anyone wants actual reasons why this study is of little value, I've
got an old blog entry on this study. This includes points also made by
other r.b.m. natives at the time the study was first available.
http://journals.aol.com/mikekr/ZbicyclistsZlog/entries/2006/09/16/want-to-get-hit-by-a-car-wear-a-helmet/798
|
| | |
Date: 28 May 2007 22:47:09
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
|
zbicyclist@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 27, 9:20 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:
>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>>> Hey, I did a study, too. I found that if I drive or ride
>>>> erratically, then cars and other riders and even pedestrians give
>>>> me a wide berth. Therefore, EVERYONE SHOULD SWERVE AND WOBBLE
>>>> UNPREDICTABLY; YOU'LL BE MUCH SAFER!
>>
>>> Another dodge. You claimed the paper has been discredited, but can
>>> only offer your typical senseless drivel. Show us you're an adult
>>> and describe why the author's findings should be discredited.
>>> Perhaps you can write a letter to Scientific America describing why
>>> the findings they published have been discredited.
>>
>> They did it for me. They put it under "JUNK SCIENCE".
>>
>> HTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> LOL
> If anyone wants actual reasons why this study is of little value, I've
> got an old blog entry on this study. This includes points also made by
> other r.b.m. natives at the time the study was first available.
>
> http://journals.aol.com/mikekr/ZbicyclistsZlog/entries/2006/09/16/want-to-get-hit-by-a-car-wear-a-helmet/798
I see cyclists all the time. Experienced ones /usually/ wear helmets, ride
predicably, and in general make it obvious that they know what they're
doing. I can drive past them safely (and they me) in tight situations with
confidence.
OTOH, I see "DUI cyclists" and kids and others all the time, too. They
often ride erratically, wrong way, etc., and more often than not without a
lid. Would I "hold my line" and pass them with as much confidence as I
would a decent rider? Hell, no. Does that mean that inexperienced, goofy
cyclists are "safer" than competent ones?
You know who recommends "weaving" to make cars give extra space? Mike
Vandem*n, that's who.
'Nuff said.
BS (ample in that "study" and its defenders)
|
| | | |
Date: 30 May 2007 10:32:21
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
|
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message
news:465bbe5e$0$4716$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> zbicyclist@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On May 27, 9:20 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:
>>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Hey, I did a study, too. I found that if I drive or ride
>>>>> erratically, then cars and other riders and even pedestrians give
>>>>> me a wide berth. Therefore, EVERYONE SHOULD SWERVE AND WOBBLE
>>>>> UNPREDICTABLY; YOU'LL BE MUCH SAFER!
>>>
>>>> Another dodge. You claimed the paper has been discredited, but can
>>>> only offer your typical senseless drivel. Show us you're an adult
>>>> and describe why the author's findings should be discredited.
>>>> Perhaps you can write a letter to Scientific America describing why
>>>> the findings they published have been discredited.
>>>
>>> They did it for me. They put it under "JUNK SCIENCE".
>>>
>>> HTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> LOL
>
>
>> If anyone wants actual reasons why this study is of little value, I've
>> got an old blog entry on this study. This includes points also made by
>> other r.b.m. natives at the time the study was first available.
>>
>> http://journals.aol.com/mikekr/ZbicyclistsZlog/entries/2006/09/16/want-to-get-hit-by-a-car-wear-a-helmet/798
>
> I see cyclists all the time. Experienced ones /usually/ wear helmets,
> ride predicably, and in general make it obvious that they know what
> they're doing. I can drive past them safely (and they me) in tight
> situations with confidence.
>
> OTOH, I see "DUI cyclists" and kids and others all the time, too. They
> often ride erratically, wrong way, etc., and more often than not without a
> lid. Would I "hold my line" and pass them with as much confidence as I
> would a decent rider? Hell, no. Does that mean that inexperienced, goofy
> cyclists are "safer" than competent ones?
>
> You know who recommends "weaving" to make cars give extra space? Mike
> Vandem*n, that's who.
>
> 'Nuff said.
>
> BS (ample in that "study" and its defenders)
I have never found Mr. Vandeman to be anything but a very wise cyclist,
unlike most of the idiots who exist on this newsgroup known as RBM.
It does actually make some sense to weave a bit when out on county road with
vehicles bearing down on you at 75 MPH. They will give you a wider berth
than if you are observing a very correct cycling style. Of course, you
always want to make damn sure you are way over when the overtaking vehicle
is very near to you.
Hells Bells, some of you are so god damn stupid as not to even know or care
what is coming behind you. I trust you do not fall into that category.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 27 May 2007 13:33:15
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
|
Michael Grillparzer wrote:
> Not a test to a scientific standard but interesting nonetheless:
>
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3594A60E4D9A76B2&chanID=sa029
Yeah, "not testing to a scientific standard" seems to be the usual way
of things for the AHZ.
"Be Nice to America or We'll Bring Democracy to Your Country Too."
|
| |
Date: 26 May 2007 14:49:54
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
|
Michael Grillparzer wrote:
> Not a test to a scientific standard but interesting nonetheless:
>
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3594A60E4D9A76B2&chanID=sa029
A) Old News (discredited long ago)
B) It *IS* a "scientific standard" of sorts, under the heading WEIRD SCIENCE
C) From the article: "New York City released a report on bicycle deaths and
injuries: 225 cyclists died between 1996 and 2005 on New York streets; 97
percent of them were not wearing helmets. Of these deaths, 58 percent are
known to involve head injury, but the actual number could be as high as 80
percent. Comparing the helmet to a seat belt in a car, Swart of the BHSI
says, "When you do have that crash, you better have it on."
At least they got something right...
Bill "troll for troll" S.
|
| | |
Date: 26 May 2007 19:52:04
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Michael Grillparzer wrote:
>
>>Not a test to a scientific standard but interesting nonetheless:
>>
>>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3594A60E4D9A76B2&chanID=sa029
>
>
> A) Old News (discredited long ago)
Why don't you describe to the poster why it was allegedly discredited
long ago?
>
> B) It *IS* a "scientific standard" of sorts, under the heading WEIRD SCIENCE
>
> C) From the article: "New York City released a report on bicycle deaths and
> injuries: 225 cyclists died between 1996 and 2005 on New York streets; 97
> percent of them were not wearing helmets. Of these deaths, 58 percent are
> known to involve head injury, but the actual number could be as high as 80
> percent. Comparing the helmet to a seat belt in a car, Swart of the BHSI
> says, "When you do have that crash, you better have it on."
>
> At least they got something right...
Do you have any information on the percentage of deaths that were the
result of injuries other than head? That 58 percent that involved head
injury may also have had other fatal injuries. For example, a fatality
could have involved a fatal head injury and also a fatal thoracic
injury. What percent involved ONLY head injuries that would have been
prevented with a helmet? Do you know actual numbers or are you just spewing?
Wayne
|
| | | |
Date: 26 May 2007 20:24:47
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
|
Wayne Pein wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> Michael Grillparzer wrote:
>>
>>> Not a test to a scientific standard but interesting nonetheless:
>>>
>>> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3594A60E4D9A76B2&chanID=sa029
>>
>>
>> A) Old News (discredited long ago)
>
>
> Why don't you describe to the poster why it was allegedly discredited
> long ago?
I'll quote the POSTER: "Not a test to a scientific standard". Happy now?
LOL
>> B) It *IS* a "scientific standard" of sorts, under the heading WEIRD
>> SCIENCE C) From the article: "New York City released a report on bicycle
>> deaths and injuries: 225 cyclists died between 1996 and 2005 on New
>> York streets; 97 percent of them were not wearing helmets. Of these
>> deaths, 58 percent are known to involve head injury, but the actual
>> number could be as high as 80 percent. Comparing the helmet to a
>> seat belt in a car, Swart of the BHSI says, "When you do have that
>> crash, you better have it on." At least they got something right...
>
> Do you have any information on the percentage of deaths that were the
> result of injuries other than head? That 58 percent that involved head
> injury may also have had other fatal injuries. For example, a fatality
> could have involved a fatal head injury and also a fatal thoracic
> injury. What percent involved ONLY head injuries that would have been
> prevented with a helmet? Do you know actual numbers or are you just
> spewing?
Poor Wein. What they got right was their conclusion. Text remains above.
HTH! LOL
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 15:57:49
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>>Why don't you describe to the poster why it was allegedly discredited
>>long ago?
>
>
> I'll quote the POSTER: "Not a test to a scientific standard". Happy now?
> LOL
>
No. Quit laughing and start reading the actual paper. THEN tell the
poster why you think the findings are discredited.
>
>
>>>B) It *IS* a "scientific standard" of sorts, under the heading WEIRD
>>>SCIENCE C) From the article: "New York City released a report on bicycle
>>>deaths and injuries: 225 cyclists died between 1996 and 2005 on New
>>>York streets; 97 percent of them were not wearing helmets. Of these
>>>deaths, 58 percent are known to involve head injury, but the actual
>>>number could be as high as 80 percent. Comparing the helmet to a
>>>seat belt in a car, Swart of the BHSI says, "When you do have that
>>>crash, you better have it on." At least they got something right...
>>
>>Do you have any information on the percentage of deaths that were the
>>result of injuries other than head? That 58 percent that involved head
>>injury may also have had other fatal injuries. For example, a fatality
>>could have involved a fatal head injury and also a fatal thoracic
>>injury. What percent involved ONLY head injuries that would have been
>>prevented with a helmet? Do you know actual numbers or are you just
>>spewing?
>
>
> Poor Wein. What they got right was their conclusion. Text remains above.
>
> HTH! LOL
Bill does nothing but laugh all the time and can add no substance.
Wayne
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 18:47:41
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
|
Wayne Pein wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>
>>> Why don't you describe to the poster why it was allegedly
>>> discredited long ago?
>>
>>
>> I'll quote the POSTER: "Not a test to a scientific standard". Happy now?
>> LOL
>>
>
> No. Quit laughing and start reading the actual paper. THEN tell the
> poster why you think the findings are discredited.
Hey, I did a study, too. I found that if I drive or ride erratically, then
cars and other riders and even pedestrians give me a wide berth. Therefore,
EVERYONE SHOULD SWERVE AND WOBBLE UNPREDICTABLY; YOU'LL BE MUCH SAFER!
>>
>>
>>>> B) It *IS* a "scientific standard" of sorts, under the heading
>>>> WEIRD SCIENCE C) From the article: "New York City released a
>>>> report on bicycle deaths and injuries: 225 cyclists died between
>>>> 1996 and 2005 on New York streets; 97 percent of them were not wearing
>>>> helmets. Of these
>>>> deaths, 58 percent are known to involve head injury, but the actual
>>>> number could be as high as 80 percent. Comparing the helmet to a
>>>> seat belt in a car, Swart of the BHSI says, "When you do have that
>>>> crash, you better have it on." At least they got something right...
>>>
>>> Do you have any information on the percentage of deaths that were
>>> the result of injuries other than head? That 58 percent that
>>> involved head injury may also have had other fatal injuries. For
>>> example, a fatality could have involved a fatal head injury and
>>> also a fatal thoracic injury. What percent involved ONLY head
>>> injuries that would have been prevented with a helmet? Do you know
>>> actual numbers or are you just spewing?
>>
>>
>> Poor Wein. What they got right was their conclusion. Text remains
>> above. HTH! LOL
>
> Bill does nothing but laugh all the time and can add no substance.
ROTFL WHOOSH ROTFL
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 22:14:27
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Hey, I did a study, too. I found that if I drive or ride erratically, then
> cars and other riders and even pedestrians give me a wide berth. Therefore,
> EVERYONE SHOULD SWERVE AND WOBBLE UNPREDICTABLY; YOU'LL BE MUCH SAFER!
Another dodge. You claimed the paper has been discredited, but can only
offer your typical senseless drivel. Show us you're an adult and
describe why the author's findings should be discredited. Perhaps you
can write a letter to Scientific America describing why the findings
they published have been discredited.
Wayne
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 27 May 2007 19:20:51
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
|
Wayne Pein wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>
>> Hey, I did a study, too. I found that if I drive or ride
>> erratically, then cars and other riders and even pedestrians give me
>> a wide berth. Therefore, EVERYONE SHOULD SWERVE AND WOBBLE
>> UNPREDICTABLY; YOU'LL BE MUCH SAFER!
>
> Another dodge. You claimed the paper has been discredited, but can
> only offer your typical senseless drivel. Show us you're an adult and
> describe why the author's findings should be discredited. Perhaps you
> can write a letter to Scientific America describing why the findings
> they published have been discredited.
They did it for me. They put it under "JUNK SCIENCE".
HTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 May 2007 20:54:46
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
|
Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me > wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> Michael Grillparzer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not a test to a scientific standard but interesting nonetheless:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3594A60E4D9A76B2&chanID=sa029
>>>
>>> A) Old News (discredited long ago)
I don't think 'discredited' is something that any impartial reader would say.
>> Why don't you describe to the poster why it was allegedly discredited
>> long ago?
>
> I'll quote the POSTER: "Not a test to a scientific standard". Happy now?
> LOL
I beg to differ. It apparently was good enough science for Scientific American
to write a short article about it. It's certainly better science than
the hand-wavy 'It's already proven by more hand-waving' I normally see
from the more vocal pro-helmet proponents.
--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
The connection between the language in which we think/program and the problems
and solutions we can imagine is very close. For this reason restricting
language features with the intent of eliminating programmer errors is at best
dangerous.
-- Bjarne Stroustrup
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 May 2007 21:24:32
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
|
Dane Buson wrote:
> Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> Michael Grillparzer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not a test to a scientific standard but interesting nonetheless:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3594A60E4D9A76B2&chanID=sa029
>>>>
>>>> A) Old News (discredited long ago)
>
> I don't think 'discredited' is something that any impartial reader
> would say.
So I could go out and ride around, make bogus observations (consistent with
my agenda, of course), draw "conclusions" and no one would discredit my
"study"?
Don't think so.
>>> Why don't you describe to the poster why it was allegedly
>>> discredited long ago?
>>
>> I'll quote the POSTER: "Not a test to a scientific standard".
>> Happy now? LOL
>
> I beg to differ. It apparently was good enough science for
> Scientific American to write a short article about it.
Under the heading, "WEIRD SCIENCE". HTH
> It's certainly better science than
> the hand-wavy 'It's already proven by more hand-waving' I normally see
> from the more vocal pro-helmet proponents.
No, you're thinking of the Global Warming proponents. HTH!
|
|
