bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 27 Oct 2005 21:02:34 From: DD Subject: advisor wanted So what set up do you use or suggest for helmets and visors with recumbents. At the wrong time of day it can be a bit glaring riding the couch trike towards the sunny side of town. Most bike helmets are made for road and MTB, a different posture from that of the laid back crowd. The problem is more acute on my lowracer and it is impractical to ride in the early hours of the morning mostly one-handed, the other shielding the eyes from the sun. What fixes or good helmets do you recommend? (and if Mr Sunset Lowracer pipes up to explain that he only got his name because at sunset he only rides his lowracer away from the sun that ain't what I mean). Thanks for any advice on visors and whatnot.   Date: 28 Nov 2005 19:49:20 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: an end to this thread sometime this century gotbent wrote: > "snippage> > > It's too bad there weren't any bicycle h*lm*t safety studies available in > 1940. You guys could have neutralized the German army by boring them to > death with this silly prattling on about the DATA! Jeez enough! My eyes are > starting to bleed from all the fumes this festering pile is generating. I believe every argument in this thread has been made several times over on one or more of the rec.bicycles.* Usenet newsgroups. We could instead make a long thread be posting the entire dialog of "The Holy Grail" one line at a time. ;) -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley   Date: 25 Nov 2005 17:50:49 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: advisor wanted Dave Larrington wrote: > Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > > [Light-O-STULL] > > Moreover, they haven't yet invented the lightweight portable power station > or Several hundred kilometre mains lead required to recharge your > super-duper hi-power burn holes in errant badgers light when it runs down in > the middle of a "400"... Practical fuel cells for cycling can not arrive too soon. Then I can use 100/55 W (high/low beam) halogen driving lights on my HPV's. Fried badger, anyone? ;) -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley "ever get suspicious about chain saw oil attracting wood dust? generally mucking up after two cuts? try dumping hot oil into a container just right sized for inserting the running blade on the job. rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..... plus 750 rpm! " - G. Daniels   Date: 24 Nov 2005 05:50:16 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: advisor wanted Tony Raven wrote: > Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote: > > > > Which is more dangerous? > > > > Commuting in urban traffic at night with a generator power light > > wearing a h*lm*t? > > > > or > > > > Commuting in urban traffic at night with a battery powered HID light > > but no h*lm*t? > > > > An insuffiently defined question to answer. The helmet part is > irrelevant so it all depends on the traffic conditions, whether there is > street lighting, the length of the ride, whether the battery is charged > up, whether the dynamo is a reliable one, whether the dynamo has a > standlight facility etc. Tony, The question was specifically directed at Mr. Scharf; since Mr. Scharf has long maintained that generator powered bicycle lights are insufficient for many uses. You are not supposed to answer it seriously. ;) -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley "Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels     Date: 24 Nov 2005 09:07:12 From: SMS Subject: Re: advisor wanted Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote: > The question was specifically directed at Mr. Scharf; since Mr. Scharf > has long maintained that generator powered bicycle lights are > insufficient for many uses. In fact I have never maintained that. What I have stated, and what every lighting expert agrees with, is that the brighter, battery powered lights provide more visibility, make you more visible, and are hence safer. "For commuters, the best front light is the very bright rechargeable lamp." Ken Kifer, Ken Kifer's Bike Pages "With vastly more light available, night bicycling is qualitatively far safer. The road can be lit both further ahead and, even more important, far more brightly to the sides of the bicycle." ty Goodman, Writing about the CatEye's Stadium Bicycle Light, in History of Electric Lighting Technology       Date: 28 Nov 2005 22:13:42 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:07:12 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > said in <4385f331$0$75816$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >: >In fact I have never maintained that. What I have stated, and what every >lighting expert agrees with, is that the brighter, battery powered >lights provide more visibility, make you more visible, and are hence safer. Really? So you can cite published, peer-reviewed studies can you? Excellent news: I've been looking for conclusive proof that lighting improves safety for some time, and as yet have found nothing but proof by assertion. Please cite fully, so I can follow them up. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken       Date: 25 Nov 2005 09:21:42 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted SMS wrote: > In fact I have never maintained that. What I have stated, and what every > lighting expert agrees with, is that the brighter, battery powered > lights provide more visibility, make you more visible, and are hence safer. Only if they're working, which they don't do once the battery has run down, and only if you have them with you at all, which you may not do if you've left them elsewhere for some reason. > "For commuters, the best front light is the very bright rechargeable lamp." > > Ken Kifer, Ken Kifer's Bike Pages Roos had a very bright rechargeable light for commuting. She doesn't use it any more, preferring a Shimano dynohub Santa brought her, because it's always in place and always provides power when needed. Neither is true of the battery unit. I used a very bright rechargeable for a few years, it's now on semi-permanent loan to a pal (I'll have it back if I'll be going mountain biking in the dark). I now use dynamo hubs because I find they work *consistently* at a level which is quite adequate. For me that is better than more than adequate a lot of the time I want lights but completely useless for the remainder. Usage patterns will affect this, mine don't fit well with battery charging and lamp fitting faffs. > "With vastly more light available, night bicycling is qualitatively far > safer. The road can be lit both further ahead and, even more important, > far more brightly to the sides of the bicycle." > > ty Goodman, Writing about the CatEye's Stadium Bicycle Light, in > History of Electric Lighting Technology Very useful for fast offroad, granted. Not all cycle use is fast offroad, and especially on lit streets other factors can be dominant, like never having to worry about battery charge levels and remembering your lamps. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/         Date: 25 Nov 2005 07:59:31 From: SMS Subject: Re: advisor wanted Peter Clinch wrote: > SMS wrote: > >> In fact I have never maintained that. What I have stated, and what >> every lighting expert agrees with, is that the brighter, battery >> powered lights provide more visibility, make you more visible, and are >> hence safer. > > > Only if they're working, which they don't do once the battery has run > down, and only if you have them with you at all, which you may not do if > you've left them elsewhere for some reason. Yes, that's true. You have to have the lights with you and the batteries charged. Duh. At least you don't dispute the main premise.           Date: 25 Nov 2005 16:08:45 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted SMS wrote: > Yes, that's true. You have to have the lights with you and the batteries > charged. Duh. Well if it's just a case of "Duh" how come I've seen plenty of instances of them running down in use and having been forgotten in the first place? Lights that will always be on the bike and will always have power have significant advantages on a utility cycle. > At least you don't dispute the main premise. The main premise that a brighter light is safer than a dimmer one isn't in itself a lot of use in many circumstances. Wearing body armour will arguably make you safer than not wearing it, but that in itself is not enough reason to make people wear it. If safety is really your #1 indisputable priority you would be, but for almost everyone it turns out it isn't... Convenience in something that is perfectly adequate is usually more useful. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/             Date: 28 Nov 2005 23:42:06 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:08:45 +0000, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > said in <3uor51FqkqdlU1@individual.net>: >Wearing body armour will >arguably make you safer than not wearing it, but that in itself is not >enough reason to make people wear it. If safety is really your #1 >indisputable priority you would be, but for almost everyone it turns out >it isn't... This might apply where there is actual published evidence to support the device increasing safety, but this appears absent in the case of lights (let alone massively bright vs. adequately bright lights). Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken         Date: 25 Nov 2005 10:44:15 From: Dave Larrington Subject: Re: advisor wanted Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: [Light-O-STULL] Moreover, they haven't yet invented the lightweight portable power station or Several hundred kilometre mains lead required to recharge your super-duper hi-power burn holes in errant badgers light when it runs down in the middle of a "400"... My mate Andy has a Cateye Stadium on his MTB. Didn't stop a motorcar from turning across his bows and causing him to land heavily on Norfolk with a borken arm. -- Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ > It would appear apparent, to me at least, that dinosaurs were largely burrowing creatures.           Date: 25 Nov 2005 11:54:04 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted Dave Larrington wrote: > Moreover, they haven't yet invented the lightweight portable power station > or Several hundred kilometre mains lead required to recharge your > super-duper hi-power burn holes in errant badgers light when it runs down in > the middle of a "400"... ...or several days camp touring. Though since you have overnights you can plug the charger unit into a handy 240V pine tree by the tent while you snore blissfully under your electric blanket. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 23 Nov 2005 21:58:29 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: advisor wanted SMS wrote: > Tony Raven wrote: > > SMS wrote: > > > >> > >> However there is conclusive proof that in the event of a head impact > >> accident, a helmet greatly reduces the severity of injury, and reduces > >> the likelihood that the injury will turn into a fatality. > > > > > > Perhaps you could point us to a reference to your "conclusive proof" > > because those of us who have read the literature are not aware of any > > such research. > > > > The studies have been posted in every helmet thread. Those that have a > philosophical opposition to helmets simply will not believe them. Which is more dangerous? Commuting in urban traffic at night with a generator power light wearing a h*lm*t? or Commuting in urban traffic at night with a battery powered HID light but no h*lm*t? -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley "Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels     Date: 24 Nov 2005 09:07:46 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote: > > Which is more dangerous? > > Commuting in urban traffic at night with a generator power light > wearing a h*lm*t? > > or > > Commuting in urban traffic at night with a battery powered HID light > but no h*lm*t? > An insuffiently defined question to answer. The helmet part is irrelevant so it all depends on the traffic conditions, whether there is street lighting, the length of the ride, whether the battery is charged up, whether the dynamo is a reliable one, whether the dynamo has a standlight facility etc. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham     Date: 23 Nov 2005 22:26:12 From: SMS Subject: Re: advisor wanted Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote: > Which is more dangerous? > > Commuting in urban traffic at night with a generator power light > wearing a h*lm*t? > > or > > Commuting in urban traffic at night with a battery powered HID light > but no h*lm*t? The former.   Date: 23 Nov 2005 16:47:03 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: advisor wanted Tony Raven wrote: > Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote: > > > > Does hard anodizing cause premature rim cracking due to its brittle > > nature, or is rim cracking caused by excessive spoke tension? ;) > > > > I don't know about that but I do know you should always grease the > bottom bracket tapers when fitting the cranks ;-) Here is photograph illustrating the proper grease pattern for tapirs: <http://zettesworld.com/hdz04b/images/mammals/maltapir14101.jpg >. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley "Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels   Date: 22 Nov 2005 01:13:57 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: advisor wanted Peter Clinch, Medical Physics IT Officer, wrote: > scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote: > > > Remember, that all the experts agree that helmets are very effective in > > preventing head injuries in the event of a head impact crash. > > For some values of "head injuries" including the very superficial ones, > and if you are saved some grazes then you can still claim the above even > if extra rotation on the neck has snapped it. So a rather dubious claim. I was wearing my bicycle h*lm*t when loading a bicycle into the back of a minivan. I hit my head on the open hatch. If I had not been wearing a h*lm*t, I undoubtedly would have suffered TEMPORARY MINOR DISCOMFORT!!! A law should be passed requiring h*lm*t use when loading bicycles into minivans. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley "Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels     Date: 22 Nov 2005 18:42:22 From: DD Subject: Re: advisor wanted Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote: > Peter Clinch, Medical Physics IT Officer, wrote: > >>scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >>>Remember, that all the experts agree that helmets are very effective in >>>preventing head injuries in the event of a head impact crash. >> >>For some values of "head injuries" including the very superficial ones, >>and if you are saved some grazes then you can still claim the above even >>if extra rotation on the neck has snapped it. So a rather dubious claim. > > > I was wearing my bicycle h*lm*t when loading a bicycle into the back of > a minivan. I hit my head on the open hatch. If I had not been wearing a > h*lm*t, I undoubtedly would have suffered TEMPORARY MINOR DISCOMFORT!!! > > A law should be passed requiring h*lm*t use when loading bicycles into > minivans. > > -- > Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley > "Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels > What about just a law banning minivans?     Date: 22 Nov 2005 09:53:53 From: Dave Larrington Subject: Re: advisor wanted Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote: > Peter Clinch, Medical Physics IT Officer, wrote: >> scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Remember, that all the experts agree that helmets are very >>> effective in preventing head injuries in the event of a head impact >>> crash. >> >> For some values of "head injuries" including the very superficial >> ones, and if you are saved some grazes then you can still claim the >> above even if extra rotation on the neck has snapped it. So a >> rather dubious claim. > > I was wearing my bicycle h*lm*t when loading a bicycle into the back > of a minivan. I hit my head on the open hatch. If I had not been > wearing a h*lm*t, I undoubtedly would have suffered TEMPORARY MINOR > DISCOMFORT!!! > > A law should be passed requiring h*lm*t use when loading bicycles into > minivans. I once tolchocked my gulliver upon a low pipe while walking across a basement car park. Fortunately, I was wearing a tleHat and was thus unhurt. I have on more than one occasion done similar things in the lower doorways of Dr Larrington's Country Residence, and sustained a lrge bump to the bonce. I am therefore going to lobby my MP to make tleHats compulsory in car parks and eighteenth century cottages in the Cotswolds. -- Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ > This Unit is a productive Unit.       Date: 22 Nov 2005 12:48:24 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted Dave Larrington wrote: > > I am therefore going to lobby my MP to make tleHats compulsory in car > parks and eighteenth century cottages in the Cotswolds. > Is the wrong answer. What we need is better training for car parks and eighteenth century cottages so that they don't hit you in the first place. ;-) -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham   Date: 22 Nov 2005 01:09:06 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: advisor wanted Tony Raven wrote: > Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote: > > > > > Next topic: Generator versus battery powered lights for urban cycle > > commuting (be sure to cross-post to rec.bicycles.tech). ;) > > > > Is Campag better than Shimano? Does hard anodizing cause premature rim cracking due to its brittle nature, or is rim cracking caused by excessive spoke tension? ;) -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley "Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels     Date: 22 Nov 2005 10:04:13 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote: > > Does hard anodizing cause premature rim cracking due to its brittle > nature, or is rim cracking caused by excessive spoke tension? ;) > I don't know about that but I do know you should always grease the bottom bracket tapers when fitting the cranks ;-) -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham   Date: 21 Nov 2005 19:07:44 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: advisor wanted scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote: > DD wrote: > > So what set up do you use or suggest for helmets and visors with > > recumbents. At the wrong time of day it can be a bit glaring riding the > > couch trike towards the sunny side of town. Most bike helmets are made > > for road and MTB, a different posture from that of the laid back crowd. > > The problem is more acute on my lowracer and it is impractical to ride > > in the early hours of the morning mostly one-handed, the other shielding > > the eyes from the sun. What fixes or good helmets do you recommend? > > Buy a helmet with an existing visor, and attach the front of a foam > visor to it with velcro. You can see foam visors at > "http://tinyurl.com/75sn6". > > Be sure to get a Snell approved helmet (B90 is the most commonly > available bicycle helmet). Specialized has many Snell approved helmets, > with the Chamonix being a good choice > ("http://www.epinions.com/content_173822676612"). > > Remember, that all the experts agree that helmets are very effective in > preventing head injuries in the event of a head impact crash. Next topic: Generator versus battery powered lights for urban cycle commuting (be sure to cross-post to rec.bicycles.tech). ;) -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley     Date: 22 Nov 2005 08:40:20 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote: > > Next topic: Generator versus battery powered lights for urban cycle > commuting (be sure to cross-post to rec.bicycles.tech). ;) > Is Campag better than Shimano? -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham   Date: 21 Nov 2005 14:41:07 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted DD wrote: > So what set up do you use or suggest for helmets and visors with > recumbents. At the wrong time of day it can be a bit glaring riding the > couch trike towards the sunny side of town. Most bike helmets are made > for road and MTB, a different posture from that of the laid back crowd. > The problem is more acute on my lowracer and it is impractical to ride > in the early hours of the morning mostly one-handed, the other shielding > the eyes from the sun. What fixes or good helmets do you recommend? Buy a helmet with an existing visor, and attach the front of a foam visor to it with velcro. You can see foam visors at "http://tinyurl.com/75sn6". Be sure to get a Snell approved helmet (B90 is the most commonly available bicycle helmet). Specialized has many Snell approved helmets, with the Chamonix being a good choice ("http://www.epinions.com/content_173822676612"). Remember, that all the experts agree that helmets are very effective in preventing head injuries in the event of a head impact crash. Steve     Date: 22 Nov 2005 19:46:46 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On 21 Nov 2005 14:41:07 -0800, scharf.steven@gmail.com said in <1132612867.515242.180640@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >: >Be sure to get a Snell approved helmet (B90 is the most commonly >available bicycle helmet). The most commonly available helmet in the US is CPSC certified, not Snell, and B95 is the current standard. In most of Europe, Snell certified helmets are all but unobtainable. Here is a list of Snell certified helmets: http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_B-90A_B-95A_B-90C_B-95C.html Note the lack of any products from the ket leader, Bell Sports. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken       Date: 25 Nov 2005 15:01:21 From: James Lane Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:46:46 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: >On 21 Nov 2005 14:41:07 -0800, scharf.steven@gmail.com said in ><1132612867.515242.180640@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: > >>Be sure to get a Snell approved helmet (B90 is the most commonly >>available bicycle helmet). > >The most commonly available helmet in the US is CPSC certified, not >Snell, and B95 is the current standard. In most of Europe, Snell >certified helmets are all but unobtainable. > >Here is a list of Snell certified helmets: >http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_B-90A_B-95A_B-90C_B-95C.html > >Note the lack of any products from the ket leader, Bell Sports. Of course, missing is B-90S because Bell probably meets that as there are minor differences between that and CPSC. Otherwise why drop only one of the B-90 standards from their webpage. By eliminating that standard, they prevent Bell from being listed. St tactics, but a bit transparent. Yes, I know that this is not directed toward Bell, but toward CPSC. jim         Date: 26 Nov 2005 13:16:13 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:01:21 -0800, James Lane <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com > said in <rm5fo15ilfaafm68k0rorf0r6capgcm51b@4ax.com >: >Of course, missing is B-90S because Bell probably meets that as there >are minor differences between that and CPSC. One of which is external validation. So, line by line, what are the differences between the two standards? Or are you making it up again? My friend Brian Walker, the helmet tester, tells me there are differences; I only have the Snell standards so I have to rely on him. Who's your source? And according to Brian both CPSC and EN1078 are both weaker than Snell B85. Neither standards body has disputed this, to my knowledge. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken           Date: 26 Nov 2005 14:04:36 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: > > Or are you making it up again? > I find it fascinating that someone who claims to do CI for a living consistently makes bold statements without having done the most basic investigation first. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham         Date: 25 Nov 2005 15:31:51 From: SMS Subject: Re: advisor wanted James Lane wrote: > St tactics, but a bit transparent. Yes, I know that this is not > directed toward Bell, but toward CPSC. It is not just the standard, but the fact that with Snell approval Snell actually tests the helmet for compliance. With CPSC it's self-certification.       Date: 22 Nov 2005 14:27:00 From: SMS Subject: Re: advisor wanted Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: > On 21 Nov 2005 14:41:07 -0800, scharf.steven@gmail.com said in > <1132612867.515242.180640@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: > > >>Be sure to get a Snell approved helmet (B90 is the most commonly >>available bicycle helmet). > > > The most commonly available helmet in the US is CPSC certified, not > Snell, and B95 is the current standard. Many bicycle stores in the U.S. sell Snell certified helmets, in fact I just purchased one two days ago. B95 is not so common, because it requires more of a full-face helmet, i.e. "http://www.dwcanada.com/portfolio/sport-protect/lofox.htm". The CPSC helmets are more common because it's a lesser standard, easier to meet and the manufacturer can self-certify. Specialized are the most common Snell B90 helmets that are available, though apparently many people have realized this, resulting in shortages. They are not any more expensive than the CPSC helmets sold in bicycle shops, the per helmet cost of Snell certification being negligible. However you're unlikely to find any $15 Snell certified helmets at the department stores. I paid $30 for a Specialized Chamonix.         Date: 26 Nov 2005 13:13:39 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:27:00 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > said in <43839b28$0$75829$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >: >>>Be sure to get a Snell approved helmet (B90 is the most commonly >>>available bicycle helmet). >> The most commonly available helmet in the US is CPSC certified, not >> Snell, and B95 is the current standard. >Many bicycle stores in the U.S. sell Snell certified helmets, in fact I >just purchased one two days ago. B95 is not so common, because it >requires more of a full-face helmet, i.e. Nope. B95 does not require full-face, it's just that some full-face lids conform to B95. The Specialized Allez is not full-face, and is listed as B95A certified. You are also evading the point: in the US, CPSC is the dominant standard, according the evidence I can find. Please feel free to cite otherwise, but given that the ket leader is not Snell certified this may be difficult. >The CPSC helmets are more common because it's a lesser standard, easier >to meet and the manufacturer can self-certify. Correct. That is precisely my point. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken     Date: 22 Nov 2005 08:50:06 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote: > Remember, that all the experts agree that helmets are very effective in > preventing head injuries in the event of a head impact crash. For some values of "head injuries" including the very superficial ones, and if you are saved some grazes then you can still claim the above even if extra rotation on the neck has snapped it. So a rather dubious claim. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/       Date: 22 Nov 2005 19:48:22 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 08:50:06 +0000, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > said in <3ug4ajF113fooU1@individual.net>: >> Remember, that all the experts agree that helmets are very effective in >> preventing head injuries in the event of a head impact crash. >For some values of "head injuries" including the very superficial ones, And for values of "all" which excludes the numerous experts who disagree :-) Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken         Date: 23 Nov 2005 13:37:36 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 08:50:06 +0000, Peter Clinch > <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> said in <3ug4ajF113fooU1@individual.net>: > >>> Remember, that all the experts agree that helmets are very effective in >>> preventing head injuries in the event of a head impact crash. > >> For some values of "head injuries" including the very superficial ones, > > And for values of "all" which excludes the numerous experts who > disagree :-) > > Guy But Steve's definition of an expert is someone who agrees, so by definition someone who disagrees is not an expert. Simple really; QED -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham         Date: 23 Nov 2005 10:06:28 From: Dave Larrington Subject: Re: advisor wanted Just zis Guy, you know? <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 08:50:06 +0000, Peter Clinch > <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> said in <3ug4ajF113fooU1@individual.net>: > >>> Remember, that all the experts agree that helmets are very >>> effective in preventing head injuries in the event of a head impact >>> crash. > >> For some values of "head injuries" including the very superficial >> ones, > > And for values of "all" which excludes the numerous experts who > disagree :-) Tsk, Buy, how can you possibly disagree with Steven M. Scharf who is, after all, one of Earth's leading experts in being a self-proclaimed expert.. -- Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ > A *National* Socialist Government did you say, Mr. Chaplin?   Date: 01 Nov 2005 19:59:53 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: advisor wanted Colin McKenzie wrote: > ... > Meanwhile I have discovered > - that helmets are only designed to cope with impacts too gentle to be > life-threatening > - that walking is as hazardous as cycling, and no-one advoates walking > helmets > - that helmet promotion and compulsion reduce cycling, which is a > healthy activity that on average prolongs life > - that at population level helmets don't save lives or serious > injuries. From which I deduce either > - they make no difference in severe impacts > or > - they make things worse at least as often as they make them better.... Which leads to speculation that what might be sensible is a flexible head covering that is abrasion resistant with a smooth (e.g. "rip stop" nylon) surface. Minor head wounds (e.g. "road rash") that cause no real damage to the brain or skull can still be rather painful for an extended period. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley   Date: 01 Nov 2005 13:26:18 From: Butch Subject: Re: advisor wanted Hi Peter, I enjoyed your Pages very much, I only scanned the Helmet sections but I promise I will print them out and read them. Well at least you wear a helmet when you go caving and when you ride your Unicycle.haha My nephew a retired ballet dancer (36) can ride a unicycle and juggle at the same time. You would get along great with him or my son as they are both quite adventurous. I tried the Unicycle, toughest thing I ever tried I think, we were riding it in a small goat pen and 3 men could not keep me on that thing. Unfortunately I have experienced a small train crash in France in 1985, I almost never ride in trains. Your friend Roos is an attractive lady but I never did see her with a hat while riding the bent? I never commented about Netherlands, I have been there many, many times mostly in the late 60's but also in mid 80's. I always enjoyed it very much, the people are exceptional, as a matter of fact the statistian I last worked with was Dutch. I agree that the Dutch are very comfortable on their bikes, but as someone else said they are also respected by the drivers, this is not at all true here, especially not in Florida. I had a cigarette lighter thrown at me last week (I seldom ride on roads). Also last week a rider on the paved trail I use reported a incident with a truck, where the truck tried to leave the adjacent road and come after him on the trail, fortunately I guess he got stuck. I always have mirrors and try to watch overtaking cars and prepare to exit the road if required. FYI this is the start of hunting season, we are advised to wear bright clothes on the trail as it is a favorite hunting ground for turkeys and deer. You mention sport cycling vs recreational cycling, I guess we mostly do a combination, we usually ride for a while then race for a while etc. While the trail is very good most of the time you never can be sure what you will run into. Sometimes Red Necks run motorized vehicles on the trail and cover it with rocks, on rare occasion broken glass, there are some dirt roads crossing the trail, fairly large amounts of sand can appear where you never saw it before. Then there are the critters, dogs, cats, tortoises (from a few inches to a few feet), snakes (small, large, sometimes poisonous), rabbits squirrels armadillas fox bob cats many deer occasionally coyotoes and alligators and bears.. To not forget the many horses camels and occasional lamas.(don't usually see them all each day). Oh yes one lady fell and hurt her ankle skating when she came on a eagle sitting on the trail. Anyway it has been very pleasant chatting with you Peter, if you ever get to West Central Florida come ride with the Morons, as for me I will continue to wear my helmet. An unfortunate thing about getting older is that it takes longer to recover from those injuries every year and I need all the help I can get. Happy Trails Butch     Date: 02 Nov 2005 10:24:30 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted Butch wrote: > least you wear a helmet when you go caving and when you ride your > Unicycle.haha Caving, always... crawling around with rocks everywhere below head height you'd not have much fun without one... On the Unicycle I certainly always used the lid when learning, but now I don't generally take uncontrolled falls from it I rarely bother any more. But I /always/ wear skater's wrist guards, and have been glad of them more than once. Even when learning I never hit my head though. > Unfortunately I have experienced a small train crash in France in > 1985, I almost never ride in trains. A problem with anecdotal evidence... trains remain one of the safest ways to travel, and though they do crash from time to time past personal experience doesn't affect their overall safety on any subsequent trip. > Your friend Roos is an attractive lady but I never did see her with a > hat while riding the bent? I almost always wear some sort of hat because I'm bald and like the extra insulation and sun protection since I burn easily. Roos usually makes do with just her hair, but she wears a buff, polar buff or cycling cap at times. No pictures though, I'm afraid. > been there many, many times mostly in the late 60's but also in mid > 80's. I always enjoyed it very much, the people are exceptional, as a > matter of fact the statistian I last worked with was Dutch. I agree > that the Dutch are very comfortable on their bikes, but as someone else > said they are also respected by the drivers, this is not at all true > here, especially not in Florida. That is the biggest difference cycling there. To have people stop and wave you on when /they/ have right of way just doesn't happen much in the UK! But accidents happen, and when motor vehicles hit bikes tends to be when the nasty ones occur, and they occur everywhere, NL included. > You mention sport cycling vs recreational cycling, I guess we mostly > do a combination, we usually ride for a while then race for a while > etc. Though there's racing and Racing. I think everyone has a burn once in a while, and I certainly try and spin out my top gear whenever I get on a big hill with good sightlines, but that's not quite the same as trying to push the whole time you're on a ride. > Anyway it has been very pleasant chatting with you Peter, if you ever > get to West Central Florida come ride with the Morons, as for me I will > continue to wear my helmet. An unfortunate thing about getting older > is that it takes longer to recover from those injuries every year and I > need all the help I can get. I have no trouble with folk choosing to wear helmets as long as it's an informed choice. I am not "anti helmet" and I own and use a helmet myself, but I do resent being called irresponsible for not pushing them on to kids heads with no real evidence that they'll help them stay alive and free of serious injuries, as at least one person around here seems to continue to think... Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 31 Oct 2005 19:48:37 From: Butch Subject: Re: advisor wanted Hi Peter, Just for your information I rode last week with my son(34), his first time on a bent, I could not get him to wear a helmet either, we went 35 miles he hit over 29 mph several times. To be honest I did not wear a helmet when I was 37 either, I only started wearing them several years ago after I had a bad fall, hit a dog on my diamond frame. First thing I did the next day was to order a helmet. Your biggest complaint about wearing a helmet seems to be comfort, I just don't see it I ride a lot and I have no complaint about helmet comfort? The start of this thread was how to improve the visor. You have to admit it is hard to ride without some sort of visor so you end up with a hat. I still have hair and I can't keep a hat on when riding my bent above 18 or so mph say nothing about 20 to 30? In our group (MORONS, Magnificant Old Riders On Nice Seats) only one person rides without a helmet, she is often fiddling with her hat. I have rode many centuries and have had all sorts of problems but never once did my helmet bother me? I don't give a dam about bike statistics or helmet laws or advertisments, I just know from my experience if I push things which I often do I can expect to fall at least every 15 months. From my personal experences and personal observations I choose to wear a helmet, because I need a visor anyhow and I clearly saw my buddys visor and forhead (in helmet) hitting the large gravel and breaking apart. For that matter I would never ride without my glasses, and have tried several types of goggles/shields which I did not like (we got huge hoppers down here). You talk about Raw data and Good Data, I seriously doubt if you have either, to get that you have to have controls and even then you may bias it. I can't begin to tell you how many times when I was working I saw people (usually managers) take statistical data and manipulate it (it takes very little) to reach the conclusion they want. Your data comes from a bureaucrat filling out a form or entering it on a computer. No one should expect a helmet to do much if you hit a tree or a car, as for the size and weight of the helmet causing damage, I think you are stretching there just a bit. I will just bet you if you are still riding 20 / 25 years from now you will be wearing a helmet and not because someone tells you to but because your experience and common sense tells you to. I can no more ride off without my helmet than I can drive a car without a seat belt. Maybe I should put a belt on my bent.haha By the way ask you Nerosurgeon friend if helmets are so worthless why do they put them on children after brain surgery. For that matter I know several local physicians who ride bikes quite a bit, they all wear helmets, and so should you. Ask your Mother or your wife if they think you should ride with or without a helmet. Got to go tomorrow is a ride day and the weather looks perfect again, and I have all that left over Halloween Candy to eat.haha Happy Trails Butch     Date: 01 Nov 2005 09:03:39 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted Butch wrote: > Hi Peter, Just for your information I rode last week with my son(34), > his first time on > a bent, I could not get him to wear a helmet either, we went 35 miles > he hit over 29 > mph several times. It may be worth your while reading the specification to which helmets are typically manufactured. That specification (usually EN1078) specifies them in impacts of up to (IIRC) 12 mph, about the same as falling over. Beyond that how they work isn't covered, but what often happens is brittle failure which absorbs very little energy (I've seen it on two of my own helmets, which I'd naturally assumed had saved me a very nasty injury...) > Your biggest complaint about wearing a helmet seems to be comfort, I > just don't see it > I ride a lot and I have no complaint about helmet comfort? In the 14 or so years I always wore a helmet I told myself it was pretty comfortable. Now I don't regularly wear one I can tell what the difference really is. Of course, if you're telling yourself it'll save you a serious injury you tend to put the comfort thoughts on hold to some degree: I certainly do when wearing a helmet for whitewater kayaking and mountain climbing. > The start > of this thread was > how to improve the visor. You have to admit it is hard to ride without > some sort of > visor so you end up with a hat. I still have hair and I can't keep a > hat on when riding my bent above 18 or so mph say nothing about 20 to > 30? So how did all the pros keep hats on doing alpine descents? Maybe you just need a better hat? My Bianchi cotton cycling cap has never blown off and I've done big descents at approaching 40 mph with it happily in place. In our group (MORONS, Magnificant Old Riders On Nice Seats) only > one person rides without a helmet, she is often fiddling with her hat. > I have rode many centuries and have had all sorts of problems but never > once did my helmet bother me? I don't give a dam about bike statistics > or helmet laws or advertisments, I just know from my experience if I > push things which I often do I can expect to fall at least every 15 > months. I think that makes you exceptional. Most A to B riders /don't/ push things much because it's quite a bit more dangerous to do so. An acquaintance of mine has just broken his back (apparently not the spinal cord, thankfully) from "pushing it", but typical cyclists don't often push that far. A noticeable trend in the NL, where helmet wearing rates are very low and so are serious head injuries, is that practically all the helmet wearing is for serious sport cycling where the rider /is/ pushing it. That is recognised as quite a different thing from typical cycling. > From my personal experences and personal observations I choose > to wear a helmet, because I need a visor anyhow and I clearly saw my > buddys visor and forhead (in helmet) hitting the large gravel and > breaking apart. If a helmet breaks it has failed and only taken a fraction of the energy it's designed to. They /should/ progressively deform. Also the case that a visor and helmet both make hitting one's forehead considerably easier. > You talk about Raw data and Good Data, I seriously doubt if you have > either, It's not perfect, but it's pretty good. Serious injuries get to hospitals, where they are recorded. > to get that you have to have controls and even then you may > bias it. I can't begin to tell you how many times when I was working I > saw people (usually managers) take statistical data and manipulate it > (it takes very little) to reach the conclusion they want. So have we all, but the analysis is out there for peer and professional criticism and will be there for many years with skeptics on all sides chipping away at it quite forcefully. The result of this chipping is that the case/controls for major helmet efficacy have been routinely pulled to pieces and the analysis of population data from road accidents has stood up pretty well. > Your data > comes from a bureaucrat filling out a form or entering it on a > computer. But from thousands and thousands of them with no particular bias. > No one should expect a helmet to do much if you hit a tree > or a car, as for the size and weight of the helmet causing damage, I > think you are stretching there just a bit. I will just bet you if you > are still riding 20 / 25 years from now you will be wearing a helmet > and not because someone tells you to but because your experience and > common sense tells you to. I've been through the common sense and experience phase, and it appears I was deluding myself. Millions of cyclists with a great deal of experience get by quite happily without one, and there was no great cry for their necessity before they were created. > I can no more ride off without my helmet > than I can drive a car without a seat belt. I've been there too. It took an effort to change my heart to what my head told me, I've had no regrets from doing so, and now the heart goes along with the change. > on my bent.haha By the way ask you Nerosurgeon friend if helmets are > so worthless why do they put them on children after brain surgery. Because their natural defenses are severely compromised. Mine aren't. > that matter I know several local physicians who ride bikes quite a bit, > they all wear helmets, and so should you. Ask your Mother or your wife > if they think you should ride with or without a helmet. My mother has been riding a bike regularly for most of her 72 years. She has, AFAICT, never worn a helmet to do so, and continues not to wear a helmet to do so. My partner is a regular cyclist too. She has only ever worn a helmet for mountain biking trips. She commutes daily by bike, without a helmet. She comes from NL, where pretty much nobody outside of serious sports use wears one. She is, like me, a professional scientist who can read reports sceptically and come to reasoned conclusions about how good they are. You can see some pictures of us enjoying a tour without foam boxes on our heads at http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/tdn1.htm Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 31 Oct 2005 18:20:15 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: advisor wanted gotbent wrote: > snippage > > I'm one of the anecdotal cases. I crashed, broke my collar bone, and hit my > head hard enough for the foam along the temple line to compress more than > half its thickness. My eyeglasses cut a huge gash across the top of my nose. > Plenty of aches from my near 30 mph crash. No concussion or even a headache. > Did I do something stupid...yes succeeded in getting too much air jumping a > break in the road, and went into an oscillation when I landed. Did I do > something stupid because I was wearing a helmet? Probably not. Certainly it > was a testosterone induced wave of stupidity, as in those days I routinely > jumped railroad tracks without any problem. Man, I got some major air that > time though, and the back of the bike started to come around and I knew I > was fucked big-time.... So much for the theory that upright bicycles are safer than recumbent bicycles are, due to the ability of the upright rider to "bunny-hop" over obstacles. Maneuvers that can be performed quite reliably with forethought and planning often fail miserably in an emergency situation when immediate action is required. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley "Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels   Date: 31 Oct 2005 16:19:10 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted In <3skd2qFona15U1@individual.net >, on 10/30/05 at 05:08 PM, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > said: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:43:01 +0100, Peter Clinch >> <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> >>> But it isn't "misguided advice", it is reporting the simple truth >>> that population data does not show any noticable improvement in >>> head injury rates with increased helmet wearing. That that *fact* >>> runs counter to "common sense" doesn't make it wrong. >> >> It is misguided because it concerns only "serious" accidents and I'm >> betting you agree that far more less than "serious" accidents happen >> than serious. Where are the stats for those, the ones that without a >> helmet might have called for an ER visit and stitching? >> >> Put -'em up if you gottem, but I'm lookin' forward to your sounds of >> silence. >> >I'll put them up for Pete if I may. >Do you know the definitions of a "serious" injury? In most countries >your "ER visit and stitching" would be counted as serious in the >official definitions. As I was saying. Non-serious are those you DO NOT end up in the ER for. >In the US, in 1991 18% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 568,000 >cyclist accidents requiring hospital treatment. 12% were head injuries. >By 2000, 30% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 627,160 cyclist >accidents. 12% were head injuries. So whatever all those extra helmets >were doing they were not reducing head injuries. Missing bit of data and that is the total number of riders in both years. Source? >In the UK the proportion of female under-16 cyclists wearing helmets is >double that of males. The proportion female under 16 cyclists suffering >head injuries is virtually identical to that of males. So whatever all >those extra helmets are doing for the girls, they are not protecting >them from head injuries. >The country with the lowest head injury rate for cyclists is Holland. >They also have the lowest helmet wearing rate in the developed world at >0.1%. Curiously the USA is the reverse with six times the death rate per >km cycled and a 38% helmet wearing rate. That has a lot to do with wach copuntries view of cycling. Europe is cycling friendly. The US is not. >In Australia where helmets are mandatory and enforced, one state has >repealed the helmet law. That state now has the highest cycling rate >and lowest head injury rate in Australia. Interesting, but what happens in Oz may or may not be relevant to the US or anywhere elase for that matter. >Starting to see a pattern? Yep, one person's facts are another's damned lies. >Whatever common sense is telling you about the protective effect of >helmets, experience around the world says its wrong. This comment fails to address the relative safety of cyclists because of attitudes and acceptance of cycling, doesn't it? Without that comparative information, the stats are interesting, but may not be telling you what YOU think they are. I'm betting you know people who have cycled in Europe who would not venture on the road in the US because of the attitude of US drivers. jim -- ----------------------------------------------------------- ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com -----------------------------------------------------------     Date: 01 Nov 2005 13:59:07 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com wrote: > > As I was saying. Non-serious are those you DO NOT end up in the ER for. > So when you said the "less than "serious" accidents" were "the ones that without a helmet might have called for an ER visit and stitching?" you actually meant the ones that didn't need an ER visit and stitching? Or did you just reposition when you realised your current position was not tenable in the face of the facts? > > Missing bit of data and that is the total number of riders in both years. > Source? > Actually numbers of riders decreased which meant as helmet wearing rates went up so did accident rates and head injury rates per rider. As for source, I gave that in a follow up post to another person's request. > > That has a lot to do with wach copuntries view of cycling. Europe is > cycling friendly. The US is not. > I've cycled all over Europe and all over the US. Not sure there is much difference. Downtown is downtown and countryside is countryside. The cars in the US do tend to drive more slowly though. How much have you done of both to compare? > > Interesting, but what happens in Oz may or may not be relevant to the US > or anywhere elase for that matter. > But when what happens in Oz is consistent with the data from elsewhere in the world including the US one has to ask is it more likely that the US is similar to the rest of the world or that the laws of physics are completely different in the US? > > Yep, one person's facts are another's damned lies. > Ah the "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up" gambit. > > >> Whatever common sense is telling you about the protective effect of >> helmets, experience around the world says its wrong. > > This comment fails to address the relative safety of cyclists because of > attitudes and acceptance of cycling, doesn't it? Without that comparative > information, the stats are interesting, but may not be telling you what > YOU think they are. I'm betting you know people who have cycled in Europe > who would not venture on the road in the US because of the attitude of US > drivers. > And I'm betting you have never cycled in Europe to make a statement like that. In fact I have just recruited a keen Californian cyclist who is finding it most unnerving cycling with European traffic because it is so much more aggressive than she is used to. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham       Date: 01 Nov 2005 23:16:11 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:59:07 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > wrote: >ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> As I was saying. Non-serious are those you DO NOT end up in the ER for. >> > >So when you said the "less than "serious" accidents" were "the ones that >without a helmet might have called for an ER visit and stitching?" you >actually meant the ones that didn't need an ER visit and stitching? Or >did you just reposition when you realised your current position was not >tenable in the face of the facts? I suggest you read back up the thread before your mouth writes another check your ass cannot cash. I have always maintained that non-serious injuries are the ones that do not take you to the ER. My position has not changed, just my words so the braindead can understand (their condition probably caused by one too many accidents without a helmet ;- >). >> Missing bit of data and that is the total number of riders in both years. >> Source? >> > >Actually numbers of riders decreased which meant as helmet wearing rates >went up so did accident rates and head injury rates per rider. As for >source, I gave that in a follow up post to another person's request. > >> >> That has a lot to do with wach copuntries view of cycling. Europe is >> cycling friendly. The US is not. >> > >I've cycled all over Europe and all over the US. Not sure there is much >difference. Downtown is downtown and countryside is countryside. The >cars in the US do tend to drive more slowly though. How much have you >done of both to compare? The question you have avoided is: which is friendliest to cyclists - the US or Europe? >> Interesting, but what happens in Oz may or may not be relevant to the US >> or anywhere elase for that matter. >> > >But when what happens in Oz is consistent with the data from elsewhere >in the world including the US one has to ask is it more likely that the >US is similar to the rest of the world or that the laws of physics are >completely different in the US? You talk physics, I talk about the possibility that helmets may reduce the severity of a head impact and keep someone from going to the ER. We've had a couple of people say that is the case anecdoatally. I guess that is irrelevant to you. The fact is I destroyed a helmet and did not end up in the hospital for a head injury. That rock hitting my head would have been a different matter. That is a fact regardless of whether or not you like it. All stats aside. >> Yep, one person's facts are another's damned lies. >> > >Ah the "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up" gambit. You missed the lead-in question didn't you? My mid definitely knows that a helmet kept me out of an ER. Can you prove elsewise? No. The accident happened as described. Accept it or not, your choice. MY experience proves helmets work in the situation described. >>> Whatever common sense is telling you about the protective effect of >>> helmets, experience around the world says its wrong. >> >> This comment fails to address the relative safety of cyclists because of >> attitudes and acceptance of cycling, doesn't it? Without that comparative >> information, the stats are interesting, but may not be telling you what >> YOU think they are. I'm betting you know people who have cycled in Europe >> who would not venture on the road in the US because of the attitude of US >> drivers. >> > >And I'm betting you have never cycled in Europe to make a statement like >that. In fact I have just recruited a keen Californian cyclist who is >finding it most unnerving cycling with European traffic because it is so >much more aggressive than she is used to. And how many times in Europe have you been deliberately and calculatedly squeezed to the side of a road by a driver? How many times in Europe have you had some driver you have never encountered yell out that they hope someone runs over you? How many times in Europe have you been run up behind and deliberately bumpered by a car and then the driver telling you to get off the road and on the sidewalk? I'm not addressing an accident here, but cold calculated intimidation of cyclists by motorists. Oh yes, and over what time span did all this happen? jim         Date: 02 Nov 2005 17:41:23 From: Bertie Wiggins Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 23:16:11 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >The question you have avoided is: which is friendliest to cyclists - >the US or Europe? With such diversity in the United States of America and the (disunited) sates of Eurpoe it's difficult to say. Even in the UK there is diversity between the cities. Generally Portrugal is not very friendly to cyclists, generally Holland is. I have heard that many US cities are very cyclist friendly, but not having cycled there myself I won't comment further.         Date: 02 Nov 2005 09:17:31 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > I suggest you read back up the thread before your mouth writes another > check your ass cannot cash. I have always maintained that non-serious > injuries are the ones that do not take you to the ER. But since non-serious injuries aren't serious, why does this affect your overall safety on a bike? > The question you have avoided is: which is friendliest to cyclists - > the US or Europe? What measure do you want to use? Have *you* answered it objectively? That will be "no", then... Once again you ignore the fact that the burden of proof applies to you just as much as to people who disagree with you. > You talk physics, I talk about the possibility that helmets may reduce > the severity of a head impact and keep someone from going to the ER. Yet you can't come up with any figures to show this is the case. If they had gone to ER that would have been a serious injury and the serious injury rate would be higher as a result if your supposition was correct. The figures don't back you up. > We've had a couple of people say that is the case anecdoatally. I > guess that is irrelevant to you. It is statistically irrelevant, yes, because the figures take *all* the anecdotes into account, and all those anecdotes of keeping people out of ER should be bringing the serious injury rates down with increasing helmet use. But they aren't. > The fact is I destroyed a helmet and did not end up in the hospital > for a head injury. That rock hitting my head would have been a > different matter. That is a fact regardless of whether or not you like > it. All stats aside. But you may only have hit the rock in the first place as a result of wearing the helmet, directly from your head being bigger and heavier with a helmet on or indirectly through behaviour modified by risk homeostasis. And if it really did save you a trip to the ER and was entirely beneficial in that case then it doesn't affect any future incident when a helmet could make you worse off. > You missed the lead-in question didn't you? My mid definitely knows > that a helmet kept me out of an ER. As above, you don't, and even if you did it doesn't have any effect on future incidents where a helmet could hinder things. > The accident happened as described. Accept it or not, your choice. MY > experience proves helmets work in the situation described. But you can't guarantee any future accident will be exactly that situation, so the knowledge is of no use. > And how many times in Europe have you been deliberately and > calculatedly squeezed to the side of a road by a driver? More than once. > times in Europe have you had some driver you have never encountered > yell out that they hope someone runs over you? More than once. > How many times in > Europe have you been run up behind and deliberately bumpered by a car > and then the driver telling you to get off the road and on the > sidewalk? Hasn't happened to me, but has happened to others reporting on uk.rec.cycling > I'm not addressing an accident here, but cold calculated intimidation > of cyclists by motorists. More than once. > Oh yes, and over what time span did all this happen? It's been happening to people on and off for years in the UK, and continues to happen. Recent report in the UK press noted a cyclist was blinded by an egg thrown from a car. None of this is an objective measure of hostility, but may filter through to you that the UK isn't the jolly friendly cycling paradise you seem to imagine. And even in much more cycle friendly places serious cyclist injuries tend to be from impacts with motor vehicles and once you're in those accidents then there is no proof that a helmet makes any tangible difference to you coming out the other side intact. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/           Date: 02 Nov 2005 12:33:17 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 09:17:31 +0000, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >> I suggest you read back up the thread before your mouth writes another >> check your ass cannot cash. I have always maintained that non-serious >> injuries are the ones that do not take you to the ER. > >But since non-serious injuries aren't serious, why does this affect your >overall safety on a bike? Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or have you memeory problems from hitting your head too frequently? Someone was having rading problems and this was posted to clarify that. Did that go right past you? >> The question you have avoided is: which is friendliest to cyclists - >> the US or Europe? > >What measure do you want to use? Have *you* answered it objectively? >That will be "no", then... Once again you ignore the fact that the >burden of proof applies to you just as much as to people who disagree >with you. I am simply asking a very direct question that you are also invited to answer: Which is friendliest to cyclists - the US or Europe? As close as I came to Europe was Greece. Does that count? If so, Europe would be my vote. Now, remove your head from that provebial dark place where your ASSumption about where I have ridden has placed it. >> You talk physics, I talk about the possibility that helmets may reduce >> the severity of a head impact and keep someone from going to the ER. > >Yet you can't come up with any figures to show this is the case. If >they had gone to ER that would have been a serious injury and the >serious injury rate would be higher as a result if your supposition was >correct. The figures don't back you up. Nice turnaround. I have also maintained that these figures cannot be found ecause they are not collected. The body of the anecdotal evidence that helmets work would probably be in this area - as would the incident that happened to me. YOU on the other hand have only ventured into the seious injury category and try to use that information as being exlusive. It is not. >> We've had a couple of people say that is the case anecdoatally. I >> guess that is irrelevant to you. > >It is statistically irrelevant, yes, because the figures take *all* the >anecdotes into account, and all those anecdotes of keeping people out of >ER should be bringing the serious injury rates down with increasing >helmet use. But they aren't. It s relevant because it shows that things do happpen outside the expected norms. The reports you cite do not include them because they are not collected. Or can you prove they were collected? >> The fact is I destroyed a helmet and did not end up in the hospital >> for a head injury. That rock hitting my head would have been a >> different matter. That is a fact regardless of whether or not you like >> it. All stats aside. > >But you may only have hit the rock in the first place as a result of >wearing the helmet, directly from your head being bigger and heavier >with a helmet on or indirectly through behaviour modified by risk >homeostasis. And if it really did save you a trip to the ER and was >entirely beneficial in that case then it doesn't affect any future >incident when a helmet could make you worse off. Writing science fiction I see. Bad attempt, pete. Take SciFi Wriitng 101 again. While you would like to attribute it to some farfetched reason, they do not apply. I am a conservative rider. Had the helmet made a difference in my riding (assume going faster) I probably would have missed the rock despte the extra 12 onces on my 220+ pound body at that time. >> You missed the lead-in question didn't you? My mid definitely knows >> that a helmet kept me out of an ER. > >As above, you don't, and even if you did it doesn't have any effect on >future incidents where a helmet could hinder things. > >> The accident happened as described. Accept it or not, your choice. MY >> experience proves helmets work in the situation described. > >But you can't guarantee any future accident will be exactly that >situation, so the knowledge is of no use. No, I cannot not and have never said that I could. Can you guarantee that someone else's accident will end up 100% the way you think it will vis-a-vis a helmet? The study nothwithstanding, someone can always be that 1 in x exception to the study. You cannot say that helmets are useless unless you can prove that 100% because yours has been and is a categorical statement, "helmets do not work." Wrong. They do. >> And how many times in Europe have you been deliberately and >> calculatedly squeezed to the side of a road by a driver? > >More than once. > >> times in Europe have you had some driver you have never encountered >> yell out that they hope someone runs over you? > >More than once. > >> How many times in >> Europe have you been run up behind and deliberately bumpered by a car >> and then the driver telling you to get off the road and on the >> sidewalk? > >Hasn't happened to me, but has happened to others reporting on >uk.rec.cycling > >> I'm not addressing an accident here, but cold calculated intimidation >> of cyclists by motorists. > >More than once. > >> Oh yes, and over what time span did all this happen? > >It's been happening to people on and off for years in the UK, and >continues to happen. Recent report in the UK press noted a cyclist was >blinded by an egg thrown from a car. This is about YOU (whoever answers) not some incident in the papers. How many times and over what period of time in Europe? For reference, all these happened to me in a matter of two months in San Diego. I never, NEVER, had any such thing or close to it while riding in Greece. > >None of this is an objective measure of hostility, but may filter >through to you that the UK isn't the jolly friendly cycling paradise you >seem to imagine. And even in much more cycle friendly places serious >cyclist injuries tend to be from impacts with motor vehicles and once >you're in those accidents then there is no proof that a helmet makes any >tangible difference to you coming out the other side intact. I would not consider the role of paradise for the jolly old UK, because I am not so supid as to believe that the UK constitutes the entirely of Europe. Nr would I consider Europe as being a paradise. Most of my friends that go to Europe to ride DO consider it as being much more cycling friendly than the roadways here in SoCal. jim             Date: 02 Nov 2005 21:56:22 From: Bertie Wiggins Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:33:17 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >Which is friendliest to cyclists - the US or Europe? I think that it would be safe to say that parts of the US are more cyclist friendly than parts of Europe, and that parts of Europe are more cyclist friendly than parts of the US. Overall it would be hard to judge. Europe is more densely populated, so more traffic. I believe roundabouts, that is fast moving traffic, are more common in Europe than the US, and traffic light junctions, that is slow moving traffic, more common in the US than Europe. The cycle lane network is more extensive in Europe, and a cycle lane alongside a major road turns a simple 3 way junction into a complicated and dangerous 5 way junction.               Date: 02 Nov 2005 23:45:56 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:56:22 +0000, Bertie Wiggins <cycling_remove_bertie@yahoo_dot_co_dot_uk > wrote: >On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:33:17 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >>Which is friendliest to cyclists - the US or Europe? > >I think that it would be safe to say that parts of the US are more >cyclist friendly than parts of Europe, and that parts of Europe are >more cyclist friendly than parts of the US. Overall it would be hard >to judge. Europe is more densely populated, so more traffic. I >believe roundabouts, that is fast moving traffic, are more common in >Europe than the US, and traffic light junctions, that is slow moving >traffic, more common in the US than Europe. The cycle lane network is >more extensive in Europe, and a cycle lane alongside a major road >turns a simple 3 way junction into a complicated and dangerous 5 way >junction. I've ridden more than a couple of gloriettas. 'Nuf said. How about driver's attitudes toward cyclists? That is a far bigger issue to me than the physical geography we ride in. I've encountered the good, the bad and the ugly - as has everyone at some time or another. But is is turning uglier by the year in my limited experience. Perhaps I'll go back to mountain biking although I've spent far, far more time and miles the last few years on my road bike. jim                 Date: 03 Nov 2005 18:22:59 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > > How about driver's attitudes toward cyclists? That is a far bigger > issue to me than the physical geography we ride in. > Cambridge UK is one of the country's top cities for cycling - 25% of journeys by bike. Here is an exchange from today on the Cambridge cycling list: >> > In addition the existance of such paths seems to justify aggression > > > towards 'on-road' cyclists by drivers of buses and local delivery > > > vehicles. > > > > As someone who suffers from this syndrome on a weekly basis I'd just like to > > point out that XXX seems to me to be being unfair here: bus and LDV drivers > > are no more prevalent amongst the cretins who honk and gesticulate than in > > the general traffic mass; it's usually car drivers. And in fact large > > vehicle drivers are probably significantly better than average. That said, > > the only one who has ever stopped and got out to assault me was a van > > driver. > > > > Wrist suitably slapped... It was an 'ordinary' car driver who forced me > off Long Road and shouted 'abuse' So do you think cycling is friendlier in SoCal or Cambridge? -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham                   Date: 04 Nov 2005 23:56:35 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:22:59 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> How about driver's attitudes toward cyclists? That is a far bigger >> issue to me than the physical geography we ride in. >> > >Cambridge UK is one of the country's top cities for cycling - 25% of >journeys by bike. Here is an exchange from today on the Cambridge >cycling list: > >>> > In addition the existance of such paths seems to justify aggression >> > > towards 'on-road' cyclists by drivers of buses and local delivery >> > > vehicles. >> > >> > As someone who suffers from this syndrome on a weekly basis I'd just like to >> > point out that XXX seems to me to be being unfair here: bus and LDV drivers >> > are no more prevalent amongst the cretins who honk and gesticulate than in >> > the general traffic mass; it's usually car drivers. And in fact large >> > vehicle drivers are probably significantly better than average. That said, >> > the only one who has ever stopped and got out to assault me was a van >> > driver. >> > >> >> Wrist suitably slapped... It was an 'ordinary' car driver who forced me >> off Long Road and shouted 'abuse' > >So do you think cycling is friendlier in SoCal or Cambridge? Sounds like the bus driver that deliberately squeezed my riding partner into a curb and continued driving off after putting him down into a fire hydrant must have been driving that car . . . or was it the other way around? Fortunately, Julio only got a bad case of road rash, but I celled the the bus company (Julio didn't want to call the police???) and they fired the driver when he got back to the barn. That incident constitutes hit and run here. jim                   Date: 03 Nov 2005 23:07:58 From: Mike Causer Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:22:59 +0000, Tony Raven wrote: > ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> How about driver's attitudes toward cyclists? That is a far bigger >> issue to me than the physical geography we ride in. >> >> > Cambridge UK is one of the country's top cities for cycling - 25% of > journeys by bike. Here is an exchange from today on the Cambridge cycling > list: > >>> > In addition the existance of such paths seems to justify aggression >> > > towards 'on-road' cyclists by drivers of buses and local delivery >> > > vehicles. >> > >> > As someone who suffers from this syndrome on a weekly basis I'd just >> > like to point out that XXX seems to me to be being unfair here: bus >> > and LDV drivers are no more prevalent amongst the cretins who honk >> > and gesticulate than in the general traffic mass; it's usually car >> > drivers. And in fact large vehicle drivers are probably significantly >> > better than average. That said, the only one who has ever stopped and >> > got out to assault me was a van driver. >> > >> > >> Wrist suitably slapped... It was an 'ordinary' car driver who forced me >> off Long Road and shouted 'abuse' > > So do you think cycling is friendlier in SoCal or Cambridge? After 30 years in & around Cambridge (UK) I've yet to see a gun being carried, except by soldiers in uniform. In 6 years in the USA (including Cambridge MA) I saw a frightening number of them, most in the back of pickup trucks. Lance Armstrong has described how he has been shot at while out riding. Just one of the reasons I'm a lot happier to cycle in Cambridge UK than Cambridge MA. Mike                     Date: 04 Nov 2005 12:26:33 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted Mike Causer wrote: >> So do you think cycling is friendlier in SoCal or Cambridge? > > After 30 years in & around Cambridge (UK) I've yet to see a gun being > carried, except by soldiers in uniform. In 6 years in the USA (including > Cambridge MA) I saw a frightening number of them, most in the back of > pickup trucks. > > Lance Armstrong has described how he has been shot at while out riding. > > > Just one of the reasons I'm a lot happier to cycle in Cambridge UK > than Cambridge MA. > Didn't know Cambridge MA had moved to SoCal ;-) I have cycled around Boston and particularly out around Carlisle/Concord/Lowell area quite a lot (particularly like doing a tour of the ice cream stands round there) I've never felt less happy there than Cambridge UK and the surrounding countryside. There are people in the UK that have been shot at while riding but it is true that gun crime in the US affects all people to a much greater extent than in the UK (although we are catching up unfortunately). I always used to remind Leftpondian colleagues who cancelled their trips to Rightpondia after an IRA attack that actually there were at more risk of being shot staying at home than they would be if they came over and stayed in the centre of Belfast. But perception of risk is always a funny thing. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham                     Date: 04 Nov 2005 00:20:01 From: Bertie Wiggins Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 23:07:58 +0000, Mike Causer <mikec@firstnamelastname.com.invalid > wrote: >After 30 years in & around Cambridge (UK) I've yet to see a gun being >carried, except by soldiers in uniform. In 6 years in the USA (including >Cambridge MA) I saw a frightening number of them, most in the back of >pickup trucks. > >Lance Armstrong has described how he has been shot at while out riding. > > >Just one of the reasons I'm a lot happier to cycle in Cambridge UK >than Cambridge MA. Is a cyclist any more likely to be a victim of a shooting than a pedestrian or motorist? And how many cyclist shooting fatalities/injuries do helmets save each year?                       Date: 04 Nov 2005 23:58:12 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:20:01 +0000, Bertie Wiggins <cycling_remove_bertie@yahoo_dot_co_dot_uk > wrote: >On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 23:07:58 +0000, Mike Causer ><mikec@firstnamelastname.com.invalid> wrote: > >>After 30 years in & around Cambridge (UK) I've yet to see a gun being >>carried, except by soldiers in uniform. In 6 years in the USA (including >>Cambridge MA) I saw a frightening number of them, most in the back of >>pickup trucks. >> >>Lance Armstrong has described how he has been shot at while out riding. >> >> >>Just one of the reasons I'm a lot happier to cycle in Cambridge UK >>than Cambridge MA. > >Is a cyclist any more likely to be a victim of a shooting than a >pedestrian or motorist? > >And how many cyclist shooting fatalities/injuries do helmets save each >year? What you miss is that there are probably a lot more incidents of motorists deliberately harassing cyclists than pedestrians. jim                         Date: 06 Nov 2005 18:01:25 From: Bertie Wiggins Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 23:58:12 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >>Is a cyclist any more likely to be a victim of a shooting than a >>pedestrian or motorist? >> >>And how many cyclist shooting fatalities/injuries do helmets save each >>year? > > >What you miss is that there are probably a lot more incidents of >motorists deliberately harassing cyclists than pedestrians. That's probably because in towns pedestrians don't usually share the same road space as motorists.                           Date: 11 Nov 2005 16:29:07 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 18:01:25 +0000, Bertie Wiggins <cycling_remove_bertie@yahoo_dot_co_dot_uk > wrote: >On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 23:58:12 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >>>Is a cyclist any more likely to be a victim of a shooting than a >>>pedestrian or motorist? >>> >>>And how many cyclist shooting fatalities/injuries do helmets save each >>>year? >> >> >>What you miss is that there are probably a lot more incidents of >>motorists deliberately harassing cyclists than pedestrians. > >That's probably because in towns pedestrians don't usually share the >same road space as motorists. Precisley. jim                             Date: 12 Nov 2005 06:59:28 From: Bertie Wiggins Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:29:07 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 18:01:25 +0000, Bertie Wiggins ><cycling_remove_bertie@yahoo_dot_co_dot_uk> wrote: > >>On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 23:58:12 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> >>>>Is a cyclist any more likely to be a victim of a shooting than a >>>>pedestrian or motorist? >>>> >>>>And how many cyclist shooting fatalities/injuries do helmets save each >>>>year? >>> >>> >>>What you miss is that there are probably a lot more incidents of >>>motorists deliberately harassing cyclists than pedestrians. >> >>That's probably because in towns pedestrians don't usually share the >>same road space as motorists. > > >Precisley. Perhaps, then, you'd care to answer my earlier questions. Is a cyclist any more likely to be a victim of a shooting than a pedestrian or motorist? And how many cyclist shooting fatalities/injuries do helmets save each year?                               Date: 13 Nov 2005 23:46:29 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 06:59:28 +0000, Bertie Wiggins <b.wiggins@wiggins.com.invalid > wrote: >On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:29:07 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >>On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 18:01:25 +0000, Bertie Wiggins >><cycling_remove_bertie@yahoo_dot_co_dot_uk> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 23:58:12 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >>> >>>>>Is a cyclist any more likely to be a victim of a shooting than a >>>>>pedestrian or motorist? >>>>> >>>>>And how many cyclist shooting fatalities/injuries do helmets save each >>>>>year? >>>> >>>> >>>>What you miss is that there are probably a lot more incidents of >>>>motorists deliberately harassing cyclists than pedestrians. >>> >>>That's probably because in towns pedestrians don't usually share the >>>same road space as motorists. >> >> >>Precisley. > >Perhaps, then, you'd care to answer my earlier questions. > >Is a cyclist any more likely to be a victim of a shooting than a >pedestrian or motorist? > >And how many cyclist shooting fatalities/injuries do helmets save each >year? If you are including people hanging out in front yards and on street corners, then being a pedestrian will probably get you shot more often than the others. Of course, not even SNELL helmets can protect you from that. So what is your point on pedestrians? There are two groups of people, in general, getting shot in cars. One is someone that is a random victim, the other group - and they are more than likely memebrs of gangs or drug operations, are the most frequent. Few cyclists get shot. Of course it is far easier to run them off the road and claim an accident. That is hard to do with the cyclist having a 9mm hole in their head. Now, what other stupidity would you care to discuss? jim                                 Date: 14 Nov 2005 16:37:53 From: Bertie Wiggins Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:46:29 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >If you are including people hanging out in front yards and on street >corners, then being a pedestrian will probably get you shot more often >than the others. Of course, not even SNELL helmets can protect you >from that. So what is your point on pedestrians? > >There are two groups of people, in general, getting shot in cars. One >is someone that is a random victim, the other group - and they are >more than likely memebrs of gangs or drug operations, are the most >frequent. > >Few cyclists get shot. Of course it is far easier to run them off the >road and claim an accident. That is hard to do with the cyclist having >a 9mm hole in their head. > >Now, what other stupidity would you care to discuss? Your words not mine... Now that we've resolved that cyclists aren't at any particular danger at being shot than other road users, and that helmets won't protect them from a bullet, perhaps we could discuss why you infer it is more important to wear a helmet in the US than in Europe. And if that is not your inference with your claim that Europe is more cyclist friendly, what it was that you were inferring.                                   Date: 16 Nov 2005 02:50:56 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 16:37:53 +0000, Bertie Wiggins <b.wiggins@wiggins.com.invalid > wrote: >On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:46:29 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >>If you are including people hanging out in front yards and on street >>corners, then being a pedestrian will probably get you shot more often >>than the others. Of course, not even SNELL helmets can protect you >>from that. So what is your point on pedestrians? >> >>There are two groups of people, in general, getting shot in cars. One >>is someone that is a random victim, the other group - and they are >>more than likely memebrs of gangs or drug operations, are the most >>frequent. >> >>Few cyclists get shot. Of course it is far easier to run them off the >>road and claim an accident. That is hard to do with the cyclist having >>a 9mm hole in their head. >> >>Now, what other stupidity would you care to discuss? > >Your words not mine... > >Now that we've resolved that cyclists aren't at any particular danger >at being shot than other road users, and that helmets won't protect >them from a bullet, perhaps we could discuss why you infer it is more >important to wear a helmet in the US than in Europe. And if that is >not your inference with your claim that Europe is more cyclist >friendly, what it was that you were inferring. You are brain dead. Thanks for the proof. BTW, cyclists have been shot at in the US, and in Europe? jim                                     Date: 16 Nov 2005 18:20:17 From: Bertie Wiggins Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 02:50:56 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >You are brain dead. Thanks for the proof. BTW, cyclists have been shot >at in the US, and in Europe? What's your point/question?                       Date: 04 Nov 2005 03:41:16 From: Mike Causer Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:20:01 +0000, Bertie Wiggins wrote: > Is a cyclist any more likely to be a victim of a shooting than a > pedestrian or motorist? It's hard to say. Although over 700 cyclists a year are killed on the roads of the USA, that number is so small compared to the 47,000 killed of all road users that it often is not separated out in the statistics. OTOH, the number of deaths by "assault by firearm" for 2002 was nearly 12,000 so _some_ of those must have been transport-related. Quick key for UK readers: you're as likely to die by being shot in the USA as you are in a road accident in the UK, then you're 3 times as likely to be killed on the road on top of that! That's for car travel, I can't find stats for actual bi/tricycle usage to get the cycling rates (but I suspect they're horrifying). > And how many cyclist shooting fatalities/injuries do helmets save each > year? Well, given opinions such as this seen tonight in rec.bicycles.misc Subject: Re: Sad, but true. from: "Earl Smith" <smitty102@nopath.org > Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 21:36:08 -0800 the problem is the bicyclists need to stay the fuck off the same road used by cars! it's not hard to imagine that some shootings would have been in an attempt to persuade non-helmeted cyclists that they should wear one. In the same way that in the UK WVM will often deliberately pass too close just to demonstrate how dangerous it is on the road. So the answer is indeterminate, but definitely positive :-(( Mike                 Date: 03 Nov 2005 17:01:36 From: Bertie Wiggins Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:45:56 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >How about driver's attitudes toward cyclists? That is a far bigger >issue to me than the physical geography we ride in. A few years ago I cycled the length of the Pyrenees, Bayonne to Cebere. I'd set aside 16 days, including travel, for the tour. The tour took me 9 days, so at Cebere I turned right for a few days on the Spanish Mediterean coast. The contrast in driving between France and Spain was stark. In France drivers would wait patiently behind cyclists and wait until the road ahead was clear, move over onto the left and pass leaving plenty of space between cyclist and car. In Spain the drivers would squeeze past at the first opportunity - and the few British drivers encountered were the worst, possibly because of left hand drive cars, and being able to pass with minimal space. I expect there is sufficient diversity in drivers' attitudes in different parts of the US for comparisons to be difficult. One this seems clear: generally towns and cities with a high proportion of regular cyclists have drivers who are more civilised towards the cyclists.             Date: 02 Nov 2005 21:42:20 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > I am simply asking a very direct question that you are also invited to > answer: > > Which is friendliest to cyclists - the US or Europe? I cannot objectively say, and nor can you. Aside from anything else the question is so broad as to be meaningless. But it makes no real difference to the point which is wherever people have looked at the population data, including the biggest ever such study based in the US that Tony Raven cited for you and also on European data and Australia and NZ and Canada, there has been no reduction is serious injuries from increased helmet wearing among the cycling population. >>Yet you can't come up with any figures to show this is the case. If >>they had gone to ER that would have been a serious injury and the >>serious injury rate would be higher as a result if your supposition was >>correct. The figures don't back you up. > Nice turnaround. Turnaround? It's what I've been saying all along. Read the thread again if you don't believe that. > I have also maintained that these figures cannot be > found ecause they are not collected. But the figures for serious injuries /are/ collected, and if they are being reduced by instances of accidents /not/ being collected because they have moved to a non-serious, non ER attending case then we will see that in a reduction of serious injuries. As I have pointed out several times, along with the fact that no such reduction is evident. > The body of the anecdotal > evidence that helmets work would probably be in this area - as would > the incident that happened to me. YOU on the other hand have only > ventured into the seious injury category and try to use that > information as being exlusive. It is not. No, it isn't exclusive but the instances where accidents are removed from it will show up as a reduction. Or they should do if your point rang true, but it doesn't. > It s relevant because it shows that things do happpen outside the > expected norms. The reports you cite do not include them because they > are not collected. Or can you prove they were collected? Once again, if an accident is not serious, but would have been serious without a helmet, that would show up in a reduction of serious injuries over time as helmet wearing has increased. It doesn't. > Writing science fiction I see. Bad attempt, pete. Read "Risk", by John Adams, to find out about Risk Homoeostasis. It has plenty of Real World examples, including the seatbelt data that you previously dismissed out of hand as "BS". > No, I cannot not and have never said that I could. Can you guarantee > that someone else's accident will end up 100% the way you think it > will vis-a-vis a helmet? And how is that? I think it might make you either worse off, better off, or about the same, with the overall balance of probabilities no different either way. In any individual case we don't know, over the sum of all cases we do know the overall effect, which is basically nothing. So your anecdote is less useful than the figures that make up the sum of all the anecdotes, including any where the helmet takes a serious injury out of the total figure. For a net effect of zero, if there are such cases then there logically will be others where a helmet has "worked" the other way, or the figure for serious injury rates would be changing in the cyclists' favour with increased helmet use. It isn't. > The study nothwithstanding, someone can > always be that 1 in x exception to the study. Of course they can, but there's no way you can predict in advance of your next notional accident whether you'll be an exception one way, or an exception the other way with the helmet making things worse. All you can do is play the odds, and realise there is no change to your chance of serious injury by putting a helmet on. And that includes missing out on a serious injury which a helmet may change to a minor injury or no injury at all. > You cannot say that > helmets are useless unless you can prove that 100% because yours has > been and is a categorical statement, "helmets do not work." Where have I said any such thing? I have stated that a helmet makes no tangible difference to your chances of avoiding a serious head injury. That is not the same thing at all. > Wrong. They do. But not at a level where they are effective at reducing serious injuries. Or the rates for those injuries would be falling. They're not. > This is about YOU (whoever answers) not some incident in the papers. > > How many times and over what period of time in Europe? You really aren't very good at this, are you. As you've just pointed out at some length a single individual can buck the trends of a study, so how is just looking at *me* of any help. By your very own arguments it's completely pointless. > For reference, all these happened to me in a matter of two months in > San Diego. I never, NEVER, had any such thing or close to it while > riding in Greece. Is Greece all of Europe, is San Diego all of America, are you necessarily representative of the whole populations of each of those areas? Answers are no, no, and very probably not. > I would not consider the role of paradise for the jolly old UK, > because I am not so supid as to believe that the UK constitutes the > entirely of Europe. Yet somehow Greece seems to fill that role admirably well if it suits your rather dubious statistical purposes. So one rule for you and another for me, eh? Bit like the matter of burdens of proof, on which subject you /still/ haven't shown me any casualty savings. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/               Date: 02 Nov 2005 23:42:01 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:42:20 +0000, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >> I am simply asking a very direct question that you are also invited to >> answer: >> >> Which is friendliest to cyclists - the US or Europe? > >I cannot objectively say, and nor can you. Aside from anything >else the question is so broad as to be meaningless. But it makes >no real difference to the point which is wherever people have >looked at the population data, including the biggest ever such >study based in the US that Tony Raven cited for you and also on >European data and Australia and NZ and Canada, there has been no >reduction is serious injuries from increased helmet wearing among >the cycling population. I note your fixation on serious injuries which I have not discussed. Would you care to move on? I have confined my comments to non-serious injuries which you have yet to address, troll. >>>Yet you can't come up with any figures to show this is the case. If >>>they had gone to ER that would have been a serious injury and the >>>serious injury rate would be higher as a result if your supposition was >>>correct. The figures don't back you up. > >> Nice turnaround. > >Turnaround? It's what I've been saying all along. Read the thread >again if you don't believe that. I've not been talking about serious injuries at all, but you have, trying to make them apply to something else. >> I have also maintained that these figures cannot be >> found ecause they are not collected. > >But the figures for serious injuries /are/ collected, and if they >are being reduced by instances of accidents /not/ being collected >because they have moved to a non-serious, non ER attending case >then we will see that in a reduction of serious injuries. As I >have pointed out several times, along with the fact that no such >reduction is evident. I've not said anything about serious injuries, mentalmidget, only non-serious ones. I've said that about a hundred times and it still goes right over your head. The are not being reduced because they were never collected to begin with, so they cannot be sed to reduce anything. >> The body of the anecdotal >> evidence that helmets work would probably be in this area - as would >> the incident that happened to me. YOU on the other hand have only >> ventured into the seious injury category and try to use that >> information as being exlusive. It is not. > >No, it isn't exclusive but the instances where accidents are >removed from it will show up as a reduction. Or they should do if >your point rang true, but it doesn't. No they will not, because they are not being collected, compiled and analyzed. You are so very ignorant when it comes to research. You border on the pathetic. >> It s relevant because it shows that things do happpen outside the >> expected norms. The reports you cite do not include them because they >> are not collected. Or can you prove they were collected? > >Once again, if an accident is not serious, but would have been >serious without a helmet, that would show up in a reduction of >serious injuries over time as helmet wearing has increased. It >doesn't. scrtich, scritch went petey's broken record, scritch, scritch, scritch . . . >> Writing science fiction I see. Bad attempt, pete. > >Read "Risk", by John Adams, to find out about Risk Homoeostasis. >It has plenty of Real World examples, including the seatbelt data >that you previously dismissed out of hand as "BS". I've not dismissed any seatbelt information out of hand. Are you so low down you have to float these red herrings? You are not bordering, you are pathetic. >> No, I cannot not and have never said that I could. Can you guarantee >> that someone else's accident will end up 100% the way you think it >> will vis-a-vis a helmet? > >And how is that? I think it might make you either worse off, >better off, or about the same, with the overall balance of >probabilities no different either way. In any individual case we >don't know, And based on that alone, you should not make any categorical statements about helmet utility, because you do not know what the person you are advising will encounter or have happen to them. That is my point, stats or no stats, there is no 100% finding. >over the sum of all cases we do know the overall >effect, which is basically nothing. So your anecdote is less >useful than the figures that make up the sum of all the anecdotes, >including any where the helmet takes a serious injury out of the >total figure. For a net effect of zero, if there are such cases >then there logically will be others where a helmet has "worked" the >other way, or the figure for serious injury rates would be changing >in the cyclists' favour with increased helmet use. It isn't. > >> The study nothwithstanding, someone can >> always be that 1 in x exception to the study. > >Of course they can, but there's no way you can predict in advance >of your next notional accident whether you'll be an exception one >way, or an exception the other way with the helmet making things >worse. All you can do is play the odds, and realise there is no >change to your chance of serious injury by putting a helmet on. >And that includes missing out on a serious injury which a helmet >may change to a minor injury or no injury at all. And as you cannot, by what right would you tell someone, don't buy a helmet because they are ginal at best in serious accidents? That IS the point, you do not know nor can the study predict what any given individual will suffer. Probablities do not mean squat when you draw the short straw. Getting it now? If, and only if, definitive evidence is gathered that definitively says helmets increase your chances of getting hurt, then you would have a viable position for recommending that someone not buy a helmet. And only then. snip of repetitive pete bs. . . >Yet somehow Greece seems to fill that role admirably well if it >suits your rather dubious statistical purposes. So one rule for >you and another for me, eh? Bit like the matter of burdens of >proof, on which subject you /still/ haven't shown me any casualty >savings. Ahhh, but you were the one that ASSumed and made an ass out of yourself about where I have ridden, didn't you? Same rules pete. I do talk about specific incidents that have happened. You avoid them like the plague prefering to hide behind research you do not fully understand but extract only the information that props up your personal beliefs. Learn how to question everything, pete, especially information that agrees with your personal opinions. Did you ever question any of the studies about what they were missing? Did you ever question them in terms of intevening variables? Did you ever questioon their collection methods and . . .? Or did you just accept them on their face? I'm betting the latter. Research is fallible - far too frequently, research is collected to grind an axe - far too frequently, research gets compromised simply because of chance - far too frequently and resewrach is bogus - far too frequently. jim         Date: 02 Nov 2005 07:45:39 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > > The question you have avoided is: which is friendliest to cyclists - > the US or Europe? > I've already said, both the same and that from plenty of experience of both. Which would you say? Ah I forgot you have no experience of Europe so you don't know > > You talk physics, I talk about the possibility that helmets may reduce > the severity of a head impact and keep someone from going to the ER. > We've had a couple of people say that is the case anecdoatally. I > guess that is irrelevant to you. > Anecdote is anecdote. It tells you nothing about what is likely to happen. I know anecdotes of people who jumped out of planes at altitude without a parachute and walked away uninjured. Doesn't tell you anything about the advisability of jumping out of a plane without a parachute > The fact is I destroyed a helmet and did not end up in the hospital > for a head injury. That rock hitting my head would have been a > different matter. That is a fact regardless of whether or not you like > it. All stats aside. > As useful as the anecdote about jumping without a parachute. > > And how many times in Europe have you been deliberately and > calculatedly squeezed to the side of a road by a driver? How many > times in Europe have you had some driver you have never encountered > yell out that they hope someone runs over you? How many times in > Europe have you been run up behind and deliberately bumpered by a car > and then the driver telling you to get off the road and on the > sidewalk? > > I'm not addressing an accident here, but cold calculated intimidation > of cyclists by motorists. > > Oh yes, and over what time span did all this happen? You clearly have never ridden in Europe or you would know it is about as common as in the USA. A Google of uk.rec.cycling will give you plenty of such stories. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham           Date: 02 Nov 2005 12:06:55 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 07:45:39 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >> >> The question you have avoided is: which is friendliest to cyclists - >> the US or Europe? >> > >I've already said, both the same and that from plenty of experience of >both. Which would you say? Ah I forgot you have no experience of >Europe so you don't know You call them even. That is now anecdotal. How does the shoe fit that you take me to task for? >> You talk physics, I talk about the possibility that helmets may reduce >> the severity of a head impact and keep someone from going to the ER. >> We've had a couple of people say that is the case anecdoatally. I >> guess that is irrelevant to you. >> > >Anecdote is anecdote. It tells you nothing about what is likely to >happen. I know anecdotes of people who jumped out of planes at altitude >without a parachute and walked away uninjured. Doesn't tell you >anything about the advisability of jumping out of a plane without a >parachute Excuse me? Anecdotal tells you that somehting outside the expected CAN happen. If things happened 100% the way non-helmet advocates say, there would be NO anecdotal evicdence to the contrary such as mine and another posted.. >> The fact is I destroyed a helmet and did not end up in the hospital >> for a head injury. That rock hitting my head would have been a >> different matter. That is a fact regardless of whether or not you like >> it. All stats aside. >> > >As useful as the anecdote about jumping without a parachute. See above. >> And how many times in Europe have you been deliberately and >> calculatedly squeezed to the side of a road by a driver? How many >> times in Europe have you had some driver you have never encountered >> yell out that they hope someone runs over you? How many times in >> Europe have you been run up behind and deliberately bumpered by a car >> and then the driver telling you to get off the road and on the >> sidewalk? >> >> I'm not addressing an accident here, but cold calculated intimidation >> of cyclists by motorists. >> >> Oh yes, and over what time span did all this happen? > >You clearly have never ridden in Europe or you would know it is about as >common as in the USA. A Google of uk.rec.cycling will give you plenty >of such stories. I asked YOU for specific information. Why are you dodging that? How many times . . . I'll not repeat them all again, they are immediately above. jim       Date: 01 Nov 2005 14:19:39 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted Tony Raven wrote: > In fact I have just recruited a keen Californian cyclist who is > finding it most unnerving cycling with European traffic because it is so > much more aggressive than she is used to. Sounds familiar. A colleague on the University BUG met an American last week who has just started here and was admiring his Brompton. Further discussion revealed he had several bikes over from the US but hadn't felt able to ride on the roads yet, finding them too dangerous. And if you think "that doesn't prove anything, it's just a couple of data points!", then (a) you're quite right and (b) you should apply the same thinking to a few anecdotes of helmet efficacy. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/     Date: 01 Nov 2005 10:04:04 From: Dave Larrington Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com <ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com > wrote: > This comment fails to address the relative safety of cyclists because > of attitudes and acceptance of cycling, doesn't it? Without that > comparative information, the stats are interesting, but may not be > telling you what YOU think they are. I'm betting you know people who > have cycled in Europe who would not venture on the road in the US > because of the attitude of US drivers. Speaking as a "European" who has recently covered almost six thousand miles on the roads of the US, I think I can safely state that driving standards, and attitudes towards other road users both powered and unpowered, differ as widely from state to state in the US as they do between countries in Europe. Personally I find it to be a toss-up between Belgium and California as to which is the most terrifying place to use the roads. -- Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ > Give the anarchist a cigarette.       Date: 01 Nov 2005 23:01:22 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 10:04:04 -0000, "Dave Larrington" <smert.spamionam@privacy.net > wrote: >ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com <ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> This comment fails to address the relative safety of cyclists because >> of attitudes and acceptance of cycling, doesn't it? Without that >> comparative information, the stats are interesting, but may not be >> telling you what YOU think they are. I'm betting you know people who >> have cycled in Europe who would not venture on the road in the US >> because of the attitude of US drivers. > >Speaking as a "European" who has recently covered almost six thousand miles >on the roads of the US, I think I can safely state that driving standards, >and attitudes towards other road users both powered and unpowered, differ as >widely from state to state in the US as they do between countries in Europe. >Personally I find it to be a toss-up between Belgium and California as to >which is the most terrifying place to use the roads. Well, that may be, but overall? Europe or the US as cycling friendliest? Yep, I've cycled in Mexico on the roads and never had a driver deliberately try to squeeze me to the side of the road. I have that happen about a half dozen times in San Diego. Our roads are both smoother and wider than those I covered in Mexico. I would be convinced that Mexico is more cycxlist friendly, alathough trying to go through the main business roads in Tijuana is much more hazardous.         Date: 02 Nov 2005 07:37:46 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 10:04:04 -0000, "Dave Larrington" > <smert.spamionam@privacy.net> wrote: > >> ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com <ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >>> This comment fails to address the relative safety of cyclists because >>> of attitudes and acceptance of cycling, doesn't it? Without that >>> comparative information, the stats are interesting, but may not be >>> telling you what YOU think they are. I'm betting you know people who >>> have cycled in Europe who would not venture on the road in the US >>> because of the attitude of US drivers. >> Speaking as a "European" who has recently covered almost six thousand miles >> on the roads of the US, I think I can safely state that driving standards, >> and attitudes towards other road users both powered and unpowered, differ as >> widely from state to state in the US as they do between countries in Europe. >> Personally I find it to be a toss-up between Belgium and California as to >> which is the most terrifying place to use the roads. > > Well, that may be, but overall? Europe or the US as cycling > friendliest? > > > Yep, I've cycled in Mexico on the roads and never had a driver > deliberately try to squeeze me to the side of the road. I have that > happen about a half dozen times in San Diego. Our roads are both > smoother and wider than those I covered in Mexico. > > I would be convinced that Mexico is more cycxlist friendly, alathough > trying to go through the main business roads in Tijuana is much more > hazardous. > So you haven't cycled in Europe then and you are imagining what it is like? Actually the worst of the countries we've discussed to cycle in is New Zealand IMO and there we have the data that helmets increased head injury rates. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham           Date: 02 Nov 2005 12:37:10 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 07:37:46 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 10:04:04 -0000, "Dave Larrington" >> <smert.spamionam@privacy.net> wrote: >> >>> ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com <ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> This comment fails to address the relative safety of cyclists because >>>> of attitudes and acceptance of cycling, doesn't it? Without that >>>> comparative information, the stats are interesting, but may not be >>>> telling you what YOU think they are. I'm betting you know people who >>>> have cycled in Europe who would not venture on the road in the US >>>> because of the attitude of US drivers. >>> Speaking as a "European" who has recently covered almost six thousand miles >>> on the roads of the US, I think I can safely state that driving standards, >>> and attitudes towards other road users both powered and unpowered, differ as >>> widely from state to state in the US as they do between countries in Europe. >>> Personally I find it to be a toss-up between Belgium and California as to >>> which is the most terrifying place to use the roads. >> >> Well, that may be, but overall? Europe or the US as cycling >> friendliest? >> >> >> Yep, I've cycled in Mexico on the roads and never had a driver >> deliberately try to squeeze me to the side of the road. I have that >> happen about a half dozen times in San Diego. Our roads are both >> smoother and wider than those I covered in Mexico. >> >> I would be convinced that Mexico is more cycxlist friendly, alathough >> trying to go through the main business roads in Tijuana is much more >> hazardous. >> > >So you haven't cycled in Europe then and you are imagining what it is >like? Actually the worst of the countries we've discussed to cycle in >is New Zealand IMO and there we have the data that helmets increased >head injury rates. Greece is as close as I've been. My comments about that are elsewhere. My question about Eurpoe is based on my riding friends who do go to Europe and cycle while there. They consider Europe as being more cycling friendly. They ride the same roads I do here in SoCal. jim             Date: 03 Nov 2005 05:45:33 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:37:10 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >My question about Eurpoe is based on my riding friends who do go to >Europe and cycle while there. They consider Europe as being more >cycling friendly. They ride the same roads I do here in SoCal. > > >jim > Those must be some seriously long roads! Indiana Mike               Date: 02 Nov 2005 23:19:39 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 05:45:33 GMT, Mike Rice <jodymike@gte.net > wrote: >On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:37:10 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >> >>My question about Eurpoe is based on my riding friends who do go to >>Europe and cycle while there. They consider Europe as being more >>cycling friendly. They ride the same roads I do here in SoCal. >> >> >>jim >> > >Those must be some seriously long roads! Hehehehe. jim             Date: 02 Nov 2005 21:57:39 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:37:10 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in <km8im19g8nfpel66drsimper091j535cgg@4ax.com >: >My question about Eurpoe is based on my riding friends who do go to >Europe and cycle while there. They consider Europe as being more >cycling friendly. They ride the same roads I do here in SoCal. Europe is every bit as homogeneous as the United states. That is to say, not at all. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken               Date: 02 Nov 2005 23:18:56 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:57:39 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: >On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:37:10 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in ><km8im19g8nfpel66drsimper091j535cgg@4ax.com>: > >>My question about Eurpoe is based on my riding friends who do go to >>Europe and cycle while there. They consider Europe as being more >>cycling friendly. They ride the same roads I do here in SoCal. > >Europe is every bit as homogeneous as the United states. > >That is to say, not at all. Very true. which then begs the question, is it safer to ride the roads in SoCal or . . . jim                 Date: 03 Nov 2005 17:55:42 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:18:56 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in <rcejm1hnkc062p74ktub3t4e5njoii85k4@4ax.com >: >>Europe is every bit as homogeneous as the United states. >>That is to say, not at all. >Very true. which then begs the question, is it safer to ride the roads >in SoCal or . . . No it doesn't. Begging the question is a logical fallacy, asking a question in terms which assume the answer. Nor does it *invite* the question, because the question is pointless. SoCal may or may not be more or less risky than some parts of Europe, there is no such thing as a generic European experience of cycling. And actually cycling is very safe, it's driving that's dangerous... Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken                   Date: 04 Nov 2005 23:52:25 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:55:42 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: >On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:18:56 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in ><rcejm1hnkc062p74ktub3t4e5njoii85k4@4ax.com>: > >>>Europe is every bit as homogeneous as the United states. > >>>That is to say, not at all. > >>Very true. which then begs the question, is it safer to ride the roads >>in SoCal or . . . > >No it doesn't. Begging the question is a logical fallacy, asking a >question in terms which assume the answer. > >Nor does it *invite* the question, because the question is pointless. >SoCal may or may not be more or less risky than some parts of Europe, >there is no such thing as a generic European experience of cycling. > >And actually cycling is very safe, it's driving that's dangerous... > WHOOSH, right over your head. Pity, I thought you would be able to fill in the dots with New England, Deep South . . . - homogenous. . . not t all . . . got it? Agree on the driving bit. . . jim                     Date: 05 Nov 2005 14:29:08 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 23:52:25 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in <i2pom1d7na9ksl5hqnda1pvu6vdko6jfm7@4ax.com >: >WHOOSH, right over your head. Nope. Like I say, cycling in Europe is every bit as homogeneous as it is in the USA. Which is to say, not at all. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken                       Date: 05 Nov 2005 19:31:02 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 14:29:08 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: >On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 23:52:25 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in ><i2pom1d7na9ksl5hqnda1pvu6vdko6jfm7@4ax.com>: > >>WHOOSH, right over your head. > >Nope. Like I say, cycling in Europe is every bit as homogeneous as it >is in the USA. Which is to say, not at all. > Then why the half-assed reply you made? Nah, itwent right over your head. Nice try to cover - failed. jim                         Date: 06 Nov 2005 18:41:33 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 19:31:02 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in <h6uqm19napqdqv00bb6ubjrue1lbo01uk1@4ax.com >: >>Nope. Like I say, cycling in Europe is every bit as homogeneous as it >>is in the USA. Which is to say, not at all. >Then why the half-assed reply you made? Nah, itwent right over your >head. Nice try to cover - failed. Well, gee, perhaps you are simply incapable of understanding that there is no one European experience of cycling, making the original question irrelevant. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken   Date: 31 Oct 2005 16:13:47 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted In <4364f382$0$6519$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net >, on 10/30/05 at 04:25 PM, Colin McKenzie <news@proof-read.co.uk > said: >Lest anyone think Peter is a lone voice... >Butch wrote: >> Hi Peter, Sorry for the delay in response but the weather is so great >> I have been out riding. I am sorry if I upset you so much, I suspect >> you must be quite young to be so naive. You don't seem to get the >> point that when a helmet works the accident is not major and is not >> reported. >Which should mean, if they work, that reported injury rates go down as >more people wear them. Whereas what we find is that the trend for >cyclists is the same as for pedestrians regardless of changes in >cyclists' helmet-wearing rate. >> For your information in our country Health care is so >> expensive that most people seldom go to ER. >Luckily Peter is quoting UK stats, where people go to Casualty (ER) for >any injury they haven't got a plaster to fit. Among other things, these >stats show walking and cycling to be about equally hazardous, and to >vary the same way over time - despite cycle helmet wearing rates >increasing from 0 to about half of cyclists in the last 20 years. >One of the reasons people perceive cycling to be dangerous is the >relentless propaganda saying it is, from those promoting helmets. >Wear a helmet, if you wish, to prevent those small injuries you're not >going to go to the ER for. But forget about it saving your life. And the proof that it will NOT save your life is? Do not confuse overall stats with what happens in any given situation. I am sure that there are isolated cases where the use of a helmet IS the direct cause of death in what would have been a non-serious accident. For isntance, not work properly, helmet slides bbehind head, straps cut off breathing . . . Of course, the acid test is: are you willing to take your CHILD with you on a bike in traffic without that child wearing a helmet? Are you willintg to take your CHILD with you mountain biking without that child wearing a helmet? That's where the rubber meets the road. jim -- ----------------------------------------------------------- ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com -----------------------------------------------------------     Date: 01 Nov 2005 21:30:28 From: Colin McKenzie Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com wrote: > And the proof that it will NOT save your life is? Do not confuse overall > stats with what happens in any given situation. I am sure that there are > isolated cases where the use of a helmet IS the direct cause of death in > what would have been a non-serious accident. For isntance, not work > properly, helmet slides bbehind head, straps cut off breathing . . . I don't need to prove it. You need to prove that I will get some benefit in exchange for the heat, expense, and inconvenience of riding with a lump of foam on my head. Meanwhile I have discovered - that helmets are only designed to cope with impacts too gentle to be life-threatening - that walking is as hazardous as cycling, and no-one advoates walking helmets - that helmet promotion and compulsion reduce cycling, which is a healthy activity that on average prolongs life - that at population level helmets don't save lives or serious injuries. From which I deduce either - they make no difference in severe impacts or - they make things worse at least as often as they make them better > Of course, the acid test is: are you willing to take your CHILD with you > on a bike in traffic without that child wearing a helmet? Ah, the appeal to emotion. Having looked at the facts I would: - make sure the bike is in good shape - make sure the child's bike-control is good enough - make sure the child understands traffic rules and conventions - tell him or her a helmet may save cuts and bruises but is unlikely to save his/her life - let the child choose to wear a helmet or not > Are you willing to take your CHILD with you mountain biking without > that child wearing a helmet? As long as at least one of us is cautious. Cuts and bruises can spoil your day and I wouldn't want too many of them. Colin McKenzie -- The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!       Date: 01 Nov 2005 23:34:08 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 21:30:28 +0000, Colin McKenzie <news@proof-read.co.uk > wrote: >ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com wrote: >> And the proof that it will NOT save your life is? Do not confuse overall >> stats with what happens in any given situation. I am sure that there are >> isolated cases where the use of a helmet IS the direct cause of death in >> what would have been a non-serious accident. For isntance, not work >> properly, helmet slides bbehind head, straps cut off breathing . . . > >I don't need to prove it. You need to prove that I will get some >benefit in exchange for the heat, expense, and inconvenience of riding >with a lump of foam on my head. Interesting. I don't have a heat problem with a helmet nor an incovenience from using them. With the venting today, I suspect riding caps would be far warmer. So, it breaks down to money. As I use medical so inferequently, my first visit to an ER would be at my expense and that is a $500 deductable. My last visit to an ER was for a broken collar bone in 1994 and the bill was for some $1500. Granted that is higher than some stitching. My money is better used on the helmet than my medical bills. I know that plastic cannot protect me in every situation, but they have done so so far. >Meanwhile I have discovered >- that helmets are only designed to cope with impacts too gentle to be >life-threatening Any impact can be life threatening. How stupid you sound. >- that walking is as hazardous as cycling, and no-one advoates walking >helmets right >- that helmet promotion and compulsion reduce cycling, which is a >healthy activity that on average prolongs life There is no other intervening variable causing that reduction? I doubt the direct link. >- that at population level helmets don't save lives or serious >injuries. From which I deduce either >- they make no difference in severe impacts >or >- they make things worse at least as often as they make them better Does not consider all the varaibles, but it is your call. > >> Of course, the acid test is: are you willing to take your CHILD with you >> on a bike in traffic without that child wearing a helmet? > >Ah, the appeal to emotion. Having looked at the facts I would: >- make sure the bike is in good shape >- make sure the child's bike-control is good enough >- make sure the child understands traffic rules and conventions >- tell him or her a helmet may save cuts and bruises but is unlikely >to save his/her life >- let the child choose to wear a helmet or not Its not an appeal to emotion. You either believe your posiition or you don't. I've found that a lot of people who say one thing about their own riding say quite another when it comes to their kids. You cannot have it both ways. > > Are you willing to take your CHILD with you mountain biking without > > that child wearing a helmet? > >As long as at least one of us is cautious. Cuts and bruises can spoil >your day and I wouldn't want too many of them. Noted your caveat. Typical. jim         Date: 02 Nov 2005 17:42:41 From: Bertie Wiggins Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 23:34:08 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >My last visit to an ER was for >a broken collar bone in 1994 and the bill was for some $1500. How would a cycle helmet protect the collar bone?           Date: 02 Nov 2005 20:05:49 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 17:42:41 +0000, Bertie Wiggins <cycling_remove_bertie@yahoo_dot_co_dot_uk > said in <jjuhm19h5kh5r2o9dc94q5p4urg3kfngvd@4ax.com >: >>My last visit to an ER was for >>a broken collar bone in 1994 and the bill was for some $1500. >How would a cycle helmet protect the collar bone? Tut tut! Surely you have read the 1989 Seattle study? If they can prevent broken legs and torso injuries they can surely prevent broken collar bones! Oh ye of little faith... Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken           Date: 02 Nov 2005 12:00:23 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 17:42:41 +0000, Bertie Wiggins <cycling_remove_bertie@yahoo_dot_co_dot_uk > wrote: >On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 23:34:08 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >>My last visit to an ER was for >>a broken collar bone in 1994 and the bill was for some $1500. > >How would a cycle helmet protect the collar bone? Where did I say it did? Quit reading between the lines and read the lines. I was using it as an example of what an ER visit did cost me and my insurance company. jim             Date: 02 Nov 2005 20:15:01 From: Bertie Wiggins Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:00:23 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 17:42:41 +0000, Bertie Wiggins ><cycling_remove_bertie@yahoo_dot_co_dot_uk> wrote: > >>On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 23:34:08 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> >>>My last visit to an ER was for >>>a broken collar bone in 1994 and the bill was for some $1500. >> >>How would a cycle helmet protect the collar bone? > > >Where did I say it did? Quit reading between the lines and read the >lines. I was using it as an example of what an ER visit did cost me >and my insurance company. Fair point. I pay for health care through my taxes. I can pay extra for faster treatment for non urgent care, or to chose the date of my care. Cash savings doesn't really apply. However, my personal safety would certainly not be a higher priority if I did have to pay for my health care. As another example, I enjoy mountaineering, especially winter mountaineering. In England, Scotland and Wales, if I were to suffer an accident, eg a broken leg, and required an airlift, I would not have to pay. In France or Spain I would have to pay - yet I take no extra precations when mountaineering in the Pyrenees than I do in the Cairngorms: I equip myself for the conditions, and carry appropriate survival gear wherever I am.             Date: 02 Nov 2005 20:08:55 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:00:23 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in <dk6im195dqbqmiufaaarqr3djigsuldrk6@4ax.com >: >Quit reading between the lines and read the >lines. I was using it as an example of what an ER visit did cost me >and my insurance company. And given that there is no evidence of helmet use reducing ER visits in any real population, that is relevant how, precisely? Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken               Date: 03 Nov 2005 00:00:34 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:08:55 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: >On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:00:23 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in ><dk6im195dqbqmiufaaarqr3djigsuldrk6@4ax.com>: > >>Quit reading between the lines and read the >>lines. I was using it as an example of what an ER visit did cost me >>and my insurance company. > >And given that there is no evidence of helmet use reducing ER visits >in any real population, that is relevant how, precisely? See information elsewhere about the folly of applying the general case to any one given case. jim                 Date: 03 Nov 2005 18:07:26 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 00:00:34 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in <mrgjm1h4s26shcn4oscmb5emc4a51o59b1@4ax.com >: >See information elsewhere about the folly of applying the general case >to any one given case. Specifically, see here: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ where that folly is demonstrated as the major underlying principle of helmet promotion. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken         Date: 02 Nov 2005 15:12:53 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >> - that helmet promotion and compulsion reduce cycling, which is a >> healthy activity that on average prolongs life > > There is no other intervening variable causing that reduction? I doubt > the direct link. > I've no doubt you doubt it but then you haven't bothered to do any research on the subject. In all countries/states where helmet laws have been introduced, cycling has decreased and in those where they have been introduced but not enforced, helmet wearing peaked and then declined again while cyclist numbers dipped and then recovered. So the direct link is pretty conclusive. Just for information here are some of the figures on cycling decline in the year following the introduction of mandatory helmet laws: > State Falls in cycle use > Australian Capital Territory 33% to 50% > New South Wales 44% to 90% for children > Northern Territory 50% commuters, 17% to 39% schoolchildren > Queensland 22% to 30% children > South Australia 38% schoolchildren > Victoria 36% to 46% children > Western Australia 26% to 38% overall, more than 50% children > British Columbia 28% > Nova Scotia 40% to 60%. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham           Date: 02 Nov 2005 11:58:58 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 15:12:53 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > > >>> - that helmet promotion and compulsion reduce cycling, which is a >>> healthy activity that on average prolongs life >> >> There is no other intervening variable causing that reduction? I doubt >> the direct link. >> > >I've no doubt you doubt it but then you haven't bothered to do any >research on the subject. In all countries/states where helmet laws have >been introduced, cycling has decreased and in those where they have been >introduced but not enforced, helmet wearing peaked and then declined >again while cyclist numbers dipped and then recovered. So the direct >link is pretty conclusive. Just for information here are some of the >figures on cycling decline in the year following the introduction of >mandatory helmet laws: Helmet laws introduced = reduced riding is your, and the research point. My question stands: did they survey all those riders who reduced their riding and ask them "why?" If they did not, there may be an intervening variable. Unless that possibility can be ruled out, it exists. Appearances can be deceiving. The link can only be established directly by surveying those who reduced or quit riding and asking them why. Otherwise, there is a strong possibility that helmets use reduces riding, bt it is not definitive. BTW, what method was used to determine the riding levels? > >> State Falls in cycle use >> Australian Capital Territory 33% to 50% >> New South Wales 44% to 90% for children >> Northern Territory 50% commuters, 17% to 39% schoolchildren >> Queensland 22% to 30% children >> South Australia 38% schoolchildren >> Victoria 36% to 46% children >> Western Australia 26% to 38% overall, more than 50% children >> British Columbia 28% >> Nova Scotia 40% to 60%.             Date: 02 Nov 2005 20:10:27 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 11:58:58 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in <056im19u2f2v1m7cc0rqrga9k1hmn5bpcl@4ax.com >: >My question stands: did they survey all those riders who reduced their >riding and ask them "why?" If they did not, there may be an >intervening variable. Unless that possibility can be ruled out, it >exists. They did survey them, and the largest single reason cited was the helmet law. This was particularly the case among teenaged girls (one district found that around 90% of those teenaged girls who had previously cycled, stopped doing so on passage of the law). Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken               Date: 03 Nov 2005 00:03:28 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:10:27 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: >On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 11:58:58 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in ><056im19u2f2v1m7cc0rqrga9k1hmn5bpcl@4ax.com>: > >>My question stands: did they survey all those riders who reduced their >>riding and ask them "why?" If they did not, there may be an >>intervening variable. Unless that possibility can be ruled out, it >>exists. > >They did survey them, and the largest single reason cited was the >helmet law. This was particularly the case among teenaged girls (one >district found that around 90% of those teenaged girls who had >previously cycled, stopped doing so on passage of the law). > >Guy Hmmm, just wrote a reply to this and my server shut down. Do not know if it got through. In essence, I would expect an immediate drop when the law went into effect, possibly lasting a couple of years. Today, where there are still helmet laws, has the ridership increased from the initial dropoff? How is/was this measured. jim               Date: 03 Nov 2005 00:03:27 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:10:27 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: >On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 11:58:58 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in ><056im19u2f2v1m7cc0rqrga9k1hmn5bpcl@4ax.com>: > >>My question stands: did they survey all those riders who reduced their >>riding and ask them "why?" If they did not, there may be an >>intervening variable. Unless that possibility can be ruled out, it >>exists. > >They did survey them, and the largest single reason cited was the >helmet law. This was particularly the case among teenaged girls (one >district found that around 90% of those teenaged girls who had >previously cycled, stopped doing so on passage of the law). Okay, has that continued or changed is the next step. You always expect resistence to change and in this situation, there are a couple major ways of resisting: riding without and getting cited or not ride. For most, the spectre of getting fined and resisting is worse than not riding. The question in my mind has always been that if this helmet requirement was the sole reason someone quit riding, were they really riders? It seems a convenient excuse to quit doing something you have been considering doing but lacked the proper motivation. Were there any intervening variables like registration or license fees that happend about the same time that helped push people off the bikes? Werer there any addiitional bike laws that went into effect that may have acted in concert with the helmet law to create this drop. Were the riders who quit ,and were surveyed, asked about any other reasons that contributed? Anyway, be interesting to know how many cyclists there were then, how tht number was extablished, and how many cyclists there are now and how that number was determined. I would expect an immediate drop that might last out a couple of years. Happens. jim                 Date: 03 Nov 2005 18:06:03 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 00:03:27 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in <c2gjm15tlglk34c282koh6eb0pmqhtk0ta@4ax.com >: >>>My question stands: did they survey all those riders who reduced their >>>riding and ask them "why?" If they did not, there may be an >>>intervening variable. Unless that possibility can be ruled out, it >>>exists. >>They did survey them, and the largest single reason cited was the >>helmet law. This was particularly the case among teenaged girls (one >>district found that around 90% of those teenaged girls who had >>previously cycled, stopped doing so on passage of the law). >Okay, has that continued or changed is the next step. No it's not. The next step is to look at helmet laws around the world and see if there is any evidence that any of them have ever worked. And having found that there is no such evidence, it is reasonable to write them off as a failed experiment. >You always >expect resistence to change and in this situation, there are a couple >major ways of resisting: riding without and getting cited or not ride. >For most, the spectre of getting fined and resisting is worse than not >riding. What has happened in Australia is that utility cycling remains depressed, but leisure cycling has increased. Since much of the benefit of cycling (both social and health benefit) comes specifically from utility cycling, this is not necessarily a good thing. Especially when you consider that over the same period many other countries have experienced substantial overall growth in cycling, including utility cycling. >The question in my mind has always been that if this helmet >requirement was the sole reason someone quit riding, were they really >riders? It seems a convenient excuse to quit doing something you have >been considering doing but lacked the proper motivation. So you think it's OK to deter people from riding if they are not "real" cyclists? Remember, we're talking here about a third of all the cyclists in a country. >Were there any intervening variables like registration or license fees >that happend about the same time that helped push people off the >bikes? No. >Werer there any addiitional bike laws that went into effect >that may have acted in concert with the helmet law to create this >drop. No. >Were the riders who quit ,and were surveyed, asked about any >other reasons that contributed? Yes. >Anyway, be interesting to know how many cyclists there were then, how >tht number was extablished, and how many cyclists there are now and >how that number was determined. Start here: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2001.pdf >I would expect an immediate drop that might last out a couple of >years. Happens. Over a decade later the level of cycling is still no more than it was pre-law, despite a substantial increase in population; in other countries cycling has grown significantly in this time. Utility cycling remains depressed. Helmets have never been shown to reduce cyclist injury rates, but injury rates *do* drop as the amount of cycling increases. The law significantly increased the level of risk for each remaining rider. The real question is, why ask the question in the first place? The law was passed based on the promise of 85% reductions in head injuries. What actually happened was 0% reduction in head injury rates and 1/3 reduction in numbers cycling. The law failed to deliver what was promised, and delivered instead something unforeseen and undesirable. Most people would consider that ample justification to strike out a law. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken                   Date: 04 Nov 2005 23:10:25 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:06:03 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: >On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 00:03:27 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in ><c2gjm15tlglk34c282koh6eb0pmqhtk0ta@4ax.com>: > >>>>My question stands: did they survey all those riders who reduced their >>>>riding and ask them "why?" If they did not, there may be an >>>>intervening variable. Unless that possibility can be ruled out, it >>>>exists. > >>>They did survey them, and the largest single reason cited was the >>>helmet law. This was particularly the case among teenaged girls (one >>>district found that around 90% of those teenaged girls who had >>>previously cycled, stopped doing so on passage of the law). > >>Okay, has that continued or changed is the next step. > >No it's not. The next step is to look at helmet laws around the world >and see if there is any evidence that any of them have ever worked. >And having found that there is no such evidence, it is reasonable to >write them off as a failed experiment. Not really, the next step is to improve the safety capability of helmets. As long as helmets remain at their current level of protection, the data will not move very far in either direction. It will maintain the status quo given no other significant changes in the riding environment. If that increased helmet capability results in no change, there you will have it. If it gets worse, you'll have that and if it improves, it will show that helmets can protect from serious injury. The rub in this is that increasing elmet safety levels significantly may call for changes that really annoy a lot of people that do wear them to the point, they might not short of being fined. In that case, I would poredict a lot of riders quitting in protest (and I have addressed this elsewhere). >>You always >>expect resistence to change and in this situation, there are a couple >>major ways of resisting: riding without and getting cited or not ride. >>For most, the spectre of getting fined and resisting is worse than not >>riding. > >What has happened in Australia is that utility cycling remains >depressed, but leisure cycling has increased. Since much of the >benefit of cycling (both social and health benefit) comes specifically >from utility cycling, this is not necessarily a good thing. Especially >when you consider that over the same period many other countries have >experienced substantial overall growth in cycling, including utility >cycling. And there is no benefit to the leisure rider? Hogwash. >>The question in my mind has always been that if this helmet >>requirement was the sole reason someone quit riding, were they really >>riders? It seems a convenient excuse to quit doing something you have >>been considering doing but lacked the proper motivation. > >So you think it's OK to deter people from riding if they are not >"real" cyclists? Remember, we're talking here about a third of all >the cyclists in a country. If someone is looking for an excuse, it will happen. Personally, I would advocate that everyone exercise. And that points to something that none of these studies have even questioned - did those riders stopping riding substitute with another physical activity. Everyone ignores this. So the fllout may not be as great as the figures indictae. Its not been measured, so it does not exist. Yet a health club near almost everyone has those on an exer-bike who is not willing to ride in traffic with or without a helmet. >>Were there any intervening variables like registration or license fees >>that happend about the same time that helped push people off the >>bikes? > >No. Source? >>Werer there any addiitional bike laws that went into effect >>that may have acted in concert with the helmet law to create this >>drop. > >No. Source? >>Were the riders who quit ,and were surveyed, asked about any >>other reasons that contributed? > >Yes. And were there any reported? If not, that data immediately becomes suspect. >>Anyway, be interesting to know how many cyclists there were then, how >>tht number was extablished, and how many cyclists there are now and >>how that number was determined. > >Start here: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2001.pdf I've been crusing this site and there are a few issues I have with it: no copyright dates for openers. Really sloppy for a research organization. That is a red flag. Before ever getting into the specific information the cover (I'll be continuing looking into this) there are some issues that go to the overall validity of the site. The site does have a distinct bias and hides behind some fancy verbage so they do not have to put contrary studies up on the site, forcing anyone who want to see information contrary to the sites position, to physically get it elsewhere or try to find it on the web while those self-same copyright caveats seem to diappear with evidence that goes to the site's thrust. That is a red flag. And on it goes. Because of these warnings, I would be pulling out a whole kilo of salt to take with the infrormation presented. >>I would expect an immediate drop that might last out a couple of >>years. Happens. > >Over a decade later the level of cycling is still no more than it was >pre-law, despite a substantial increase in population; in other >countries cycling has grown significantly in this time. Utility >cycling remains depressed. Utility = ? If you mean commuting, I think that may be up in the US, others would have a better picture of that. I would commute but my work does not give me that option so I am relatively ignorant of their issues. >Helmets have never been shown to reduce cyclist injury rates, but >injury rates *do* drop as the amount of cycling increases. The law >significantly increased the level of risk for each remaining rider. Actually you are flat-assed wrong. The site itself points to those contrary studies: Dorsch, 1987 -90% fatalities Thompson, Rivara, Thompson, 1989 -85% head injuries, -88% brain injuries Wasserman, 1990 -29% concussions, -82% skull fractures McDermott, 1993 -39% head injuries, but no significant reduction for adults Thompson, Rivara, Thompson, 1996 -69% head injuries, -65% brain injuries Table 1 Injury savings predicted by case-control studies However, that is as much information as the site gives versus chapter and verse to studies supporting its position. >The real question is, why ask the question in the first place? The >law was passed based on the promise of 85% reductions in head >injuries. What actually happened was 0% reduction in head injury >rates and 1/3 reduction in numbers cycling. The law failed to deliver >what was promised, and delivered instead something unforeseen and >undesirable. Most people would consider that ample justification to >strike out a law. I would never make a statement like it will reduce x to z. That is folly. jim                     Date: 05 Nov 2005 15:09:53 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 23:10:25 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in <r8lom155bam9m0r4n4fp9pcegfraa6026b@4ax.com >: >>The next step is to look at helmet laws around the world >>and see if there is any evidence that any of them have ever worked. >>And having found that there is no such evidence, it is reasonable to >>write them off as a failed experiment. >Not really, the next step is to improve the safety capability of >helmets. As long as helmets remain at their current level of >protection, the data will not move very far in either direction. It >will maintain the status quo given no other significant changes in the >riding environment. First, why? I have yet to see any credible evidence that cycling is either unusually dangerous or unusually productive of head injuries. Second, that flies in the face of current practice, which is to reduce the standard of helmets to keep prices down and to make the product more acceptable to cyclists (less heavy and hot). Third, according to a friend of mine who used to work for Snell and is now the principal helmet tester in the UK, the forces generated in serious and fatal bike collisions are routinely in excess of those for which the best motor racing helmets are certified. >If that increased helmet capability results in no change, there you >will have it. If it gets worse, you'll have that and if it improves, >it will show that helmets can protect from serious injury. That is a reversal of burden of proof. You are proposing an intervention, and then when the intervention is shown to be ineffective in practice, proposing that its efficacy can only be disproved by increasing the intervention. >>What has happened in Australia is that utility cycling remains >>depressed, but leisure cycling has increased. Since much of the >>benefit of cycling (both social and health benefit) comes specifically >>from utility cycling, this is not necessarily a good thing. Especially >>when you consider that over the same period many other countries have >>experienced substantial overall growth in cycling, including utility >>cycling. >And there is no benefit to the leisure rider? Hogwash. Read it again. Utility cycling, which is known to be uniquely beneficial even among otherwise fit people, remains depressed. Do you genuinely believe that a law is a good law when it generated zero measurable benefit and the harm still has not worn off over ten years later? Your statement above is a classic example of begging the question. You assume in your premises that helmets are doing good, and that the reduction in cycling is worth the price as long as it wore off eventually. But that's not what happened! There is *zero* measurable benefit, and even if the substantial reduction in cycling had fully recovered (which it hasn't), ten years of growth experienced in other countries has been lost. A law exists which formalises the claim that cycling is dangerous, when all the evidence shows that actually cycling is more likely to increase your lifespan than shorten it. >If someone is looking for an excuse, it will happen. Evasion. You can't get away from the fact that measured cycling numbers declined by a third and more virtually overnight, for zero measurable benefit. >>>Were there any intervening variables like registration or license fees >>>that happend about the same time that helped push people off the >>>bikes? >>No. >Source? Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws, Robinson DL. 1996. Accident Analysis & Prevention: 1996 Jul;28(4):463-75 (and others) >>>Werer there any addiitional bike laws that went into effect >>>that may have acted in concert with the helmet law to create this >>>drop. >>No. >Source? As above. >>>Were the riders who quit ,and were surveyed, asked about any >>>other reasons that contributed? >>Yes. >And were there any reported? If not, that data immediately becomes >suspect. Some, but the helmet law was the number one cited reason. "It's too dangerous" was in there, too - the level of actual danger not having changed materially, of course. >>Start here: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2001.pdf >I've been crusing this site and there are a few issues I have with it: >no copyright dates for openers. Really sloppy for a research >organization. That is a red flag. Oh yes, that makes all the difference. Bugger the fact that we've spent many thousands of man-hours digesting pro-helmet and sceptical research from dozens of countries, and cited sources for every statement, the lack of a copyright date makes the whole thing completely suspect :-) >The site does have a distinct bias and hides behind some fancy verbage >so they do not have to put contrary studies up on the site, forcing >anyone who want to see information contrary to the sites position, to >physically get it elsewhere or try to find it on the web while those >self-same copyright caveats seem to diappear with evidence that goes >to the site's thrust. That is a red flag. False. All figures are cited, most of them are covered by copyright. See if you can find the full text for "A case control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets", Thompson RS, Rivara FP, Thompson DC. 1989. New England Journal of Medicine: 1989 v320 n21 p1361-7, free of charge on the web. And I thought it was me who was supposed to reject stuff out of hand that conflicted with my pre-existing position? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me! >And on it goes. Because of these warnings, I would be pulling out a >whole kilo of salt to take with the infrormation presented. Just so long as you apply equal scepticism to the pro-helmet evidence. Oh, wait, your starting point is that it's all 100% reliable, isn't it? I'd forgotten we were in reversed-burden-of-proof mode here. Hey I bet you don't even have a St. Christopher medal on your bike! Only an idiot would ride without one! I challenge you to prove they are ineffective... >>Over a decade later the level of cycling is still no more than it was >>pre-law, despite a substantial increase in population; in other >>countries cycling has grown significantly in this time. Utility >>cycling remains depressed. >Utility = ? If you mean commuting, I think that may be up in the US, >others would have a better picture of that. I would commute but my >work does not give me that option so I am relatively ignorant of their >issues. Utility cycling is cycling for transport, not as a leisure journey. Could be commuting, shopping, whatever. >>Helmets have never been shown to reduce cyclist injury rates, but >>injury rates *do* drop as the amount of cycling increases. The law >>significantly increased the level of risk for each remaining rider. >Actually you are flat-assed wrong. The site itself points to those >contrary studies: No, I am absolutely right. Helmets have never been shown to reduce cyclist injury rates. What those studies show is that cyclists who choose to wear helmets are less likely to have serious injuries - a very different claim. But since these studies are all of the same type, a type which is known to be wrong a lot of the time (indeed, most widely-cited studies of this type are subsequently contradicted or found to be substantially over-optimistic, according to recent research), there is a need to conform their findings by other means. If you can find a single country which can show a provable reduction in cyclist head injury rates due to increasing helmet use you will be doing rather better than our Department for Transport, which had to admit recently that it knew of no such case. >Dorsch, 1987 > -90% fatalities "In 1985 Dr Dorsch, an author of the source report, told an Australian parliamentary committee that the conclusions of the study should be treated with care. She said, "That was a hypothetical procedure based largely on an adult group of cyclists"." >Thompson, Rivara, Thompson, 1989 > -85% head injuries, -88% brain injuries Read that, have you? http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2006.pdf >Wasserman, 1990 > -29% concussions, -82% skull fractures Read that, have you? No? Read it, and look for the other differences between the groups. >McDermott, 1993 > -39% head injuries, but no significant reduction for adults Read it and look for the other differences between the groups. >Thompson, Rivara, Thompson, 1996 > -69% head injuries, -65% brain injuries Read it and look for the other differences between the groups. >However, that is as much information as the site gives versus chapter >and verse to studies supporting its position. Because there are any number of sites promoting these figures, especially the 85%/88% from the 1989 Seattle study, which is the most widely cited in the world. Interesting, though, that you cite these as reliable sources without having read them. I have read them. I suggest you do to, especially I suggest that you look at the 1989 Seattle study, especially tables 2 and 3 versus table 5. >>The real question is, why ask the question in the first place? The >>law was passed based on the promise of 85% reductions in head >>injuries. What actually happened was 0% reduction in head injury >>rates and 1/3 reduction in numbers cycling. The law failed to deliver >>what was promised, and delivered instead something unforeseen and >>undesirable. Most people would consider that ample justification to >>strike out a law. >I would never make a statement like it will reduce x to z. That is >folly. Quite so. But the sites promoting helmets all say studies show that helmets can prevent up to X% of head injuries) the X almost always being 85%) and up to Y% of brain injuries (the Y almost always being 88%). They don't say that the same studies show they prevent an equal proportion of leg injuries (which they do), or that some of the head injuries "prevented" are to parts of the face not covered by the helmet (which the studies tend to tapdance around), or that the brain injuries concerned are almost all simple concussions with no lasting consequences (brain injury sounds so much scarier than concussion, doesn't it?) or that many of those head injuries are cuts and bruises (head injury has a much better ring to it, doesn't it?). I used to think like you. And then I read the evidence which underpinned that position, and realised I'd been duped. I suggest you do the same. Go back and read the original sources, in detail, and see if you can detect systemic bias on the part of the authors. Remember, many of these authors were already openly in favour of compulsion before they conducted the research! Go and read the sources. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken                       Date: 05 Nov 2005 19:30:14 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 15:09:53 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: >On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 23:10:25 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in ><r8lom155bam9m0r4n4fp9pcegfraa6026b@4ax.com>: > >>>The next step is to look at helmet laws around the world >>>and see if there is any evidence that any of them have ever worked. >>>And having found that there is no such evidence, it is reasonable to >>>write them off as a failed experiment. > >>Not really, the next step is to improve the safety capability of >>helmets. As long as helmets remain at their current level of >>protection, the data will not move very far in either direction. It >>will maintain the status quo given no other significant changes in the >>riding environment. > >First, why? I have yet to see any credible evidence that cycling is >either unusually dangerous or unusually productive of head injuries. See what you want to see. Until it strikes very close to your own home, you're more than welcome. I wonder what you would say were a child of yours injureed thusly about the relative safety of riding. You take solace in the facts and figures. The point remains, to see an effect, you have to make the helmets safer. Otherwise the status quo, given no other major changes in the environment, will continue. Talk about that point, not your feelings. >Second, that flies in the face of current practice, which is to reduce >the standard of helmets to keep prices down and to make the product >more acceptable to cyclists (less heavy and hot). Really? I'll be in a couple of bike shops over the next two or three days and will see just how many are non-ANSI or Snell, if that is still used. Isuspect you may have apoint, but I am unaware of them being made less safe. Have you any comparative data on destructive testing of these over a couple of years? >Third, according to a friend of mine who used to work for Snell and is >now the principal helmet tester in the UK, the forces generated in >serious and fatal bike collisions are routinely in excess of those for >which the best motor racing helmets are certified. Irrelevant to my point. Also well known and have I not disputed this. >>If that increased helmet capability results in no change, there you >>will have it. If it gets worse, you'll have that and if it improves, >>it will show that helmets can protect from serious injury. > >That is a reversal of burden of proof. You are proposing an >intervention, and then when the intervention is shown to be >ineffective in practice, proposing that its efficacy can only be >disproved by increasing the intervention. BS. You know it and I know you know it. That is direct proof. If the safety of the helmet is increased, the proof, one way or another will be found in the serious uinjury stats that result from the helmet change. That is not a reversal. I do propose that helmets be improved. Seems it is the only cycling industry that hasn't improved over the years. We've better gloves, bikes, componenets - so why not helmets? >>>What has happened in Australia is that utility cycling remains >>>depressed, but leisure cycling has increased. Since much of the >>>benefit of cycling (both social and health benefit) comes specifically >>>from utility cycling, this is not necessarily a good thing. Especially >>>when you consider that over the same period many other countries have >>>experienced substantial overall growth in cycling, including utility >>>cycling. BTW, I asked about a definition of utility cycling and still am unclear of its definition. Oh, found it several graphs below. >>And there is no benefit to the leisure rider? Hogwash. > >Read it again. Utility cycling, which is known to be uniquely >beneficial even among otherwise fit people, remains depressed. Hmmmm, I have to judge on what I see and that is more riders these days. Of course, at first you'll deny that, but then you'll think about an interveining variable, and get to the truth. Cycling is up due to the higher gas prices. I suspect that most of that will go away when prices drop - but not all of them Some will have adapted to a new way of thinking about going to work or to shop. BTW, one of the big problems we have here in San Diego is the lack of cycling support in terms of there is no secure areas for bikes, most employers don't provide for riders and the like. Pity. >Do you genuinely believe that a law is a good law when it generated >zero measurable benefit and the harm still has not worn off over ten >years later? Your statement above is a classic example of begging the >question. You assume in your premises that helmets are doing good, >and that the reduction in cycling is worth the price as long as it >wore off eventually. But that's not what happened! There is *zero* >measurable benefit, and even if the substantial reduction in cycling >had fully recovered (which it hasn't), ten years of growth experienced >in other countries has been lost. Some studies that you have rejected say otherwise. One of the most interesting messages here pointed to a new study being done in England. I think that study will shed a lot of light on helmet safety issues. I think you have seen that message, but I do not recall the poster. >A law exists which formalises the claim that cycling is dangerous, >when all the evidence shows that actually cycling is more likely to >increase your lifespan than shorten it. Of course, that increased life span means nothing it you get hit by a car. I firmly believe that cycling is very beneficial. I know in my heart that I am alive because of cycling - the doc said I was on my way to a meeting with a flat table and paddles. I took up riding after being off bikes for 30 years and have not looked back. So, you do not have to preach the benefits of cycling to me. I am probably here because of cycling. >>If someone is looking for an excuse, it will happen. > >Evasion. You can't get away from the fact that measured cycling >numbers declined by a third and more virtually overnight, for zero >measurable benefit. Untrue. The statement is a fact. Deal with it. Some people were probably looking for an excuse and found it with the new law. The benefit, one way or another, is moot in this instance. A helmet certainly does not keep one from riding for any other reason. It does not curtail the benefits of riding - they exist helmet or not. >>>>Were there any intervening variables like registration or license fees >>>>that happend about the same time that helped push people off the >>>>bikes? >>>No. >>Source? > >Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws, Robinson DL. 1996. Accident >Analysis & Prevention: 1996 Jul;28(4):463-75 (and others) > >>>>Werer there any addiitional bike laws that went into effect >>>>that may have acted in concert with the helmet law to create this >>>>drop. >>>No. >>Source? > >As above. > >>>>Were the riders who quit ,and were surveyed, asked about any >>>>other reasons that contributed? >>>Yes. >>And were there any reported? If not, that data immediately becomes >>suspect. > >Some, but the helmet law was the number one cited reason. "It's too >dangerous" was in there, too - the level of actual danger not having >changed materially, of course. Ahhhh, and that MAY mean that I was right when I said that the law seved as an excuse. >>>Start here: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2001.pdf >>I've been crusing this site and there are a few issues I have with it: >>no copyright dates for openers. Really sloppy for a research >>organization. That is a red flag. > >Oh yes, that makes all the difference. Bugger the fact that we've >spent many thousands of man-hours digesting pro-helmet and sceptical >research from dozens of countries, and cited sources for every >statement, the lack of a copyright date makes the whole thing >completely suspect :-) I said it raises a red flag and means you need to take extra care with what is presented. >>The site does have a distinct bias and hides behind some fancy verbage >>so they do not have to put contrary studies up on the site, forcing >>anyone who want to see information contrary to the sites position, to >>physically get it elsewhere or try to find it on the web while those >>self-same copyright caveats seem to diappear with evidence that goes >>to the site's thrust. That is a red flag. > >False. All figures are cited, most of them are covered by copyright. >See if you can find the full text for "A case control study of the >effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets", Thompson RS, Rivara FP, >Thompson DC. 1989. New England Journal of Medicine: 1989 v320 n21 >p1361-7, free of charge on the web. BS, most of the stuff they did cite is also covered by copyright and to put it up all they had to do was get permission from the authors. That they did for the information supporting their position. That there is so little offered in opposition means they used a "fair use" policy of doing the absolute minimum where it goes aginst the page's position. Aall they had to do was write for that permission. Did they do so? There is nothing there to indicate they did, and they surely did with the anti-helmet infoprmation they put up. That is patent manipulation of the information being presented. That is pure, unadulerated bias in action. >And I thought it was me who was supposed to reject stuff out of hand >that conflicted with my pre-existing position? Sounds like the pot >calling the kettle black to me! > >>And on it goes. Because of these warnings, I would be pulling out a >>whole kilo of salt to take with the infrormation presented. > >Just so long as you apply equal scepticism to the pro-helmet evidence. >Oh, wait, your starting point is that it's all 100% reliable, isn't >it? I'd forgotten we were in reversed-burden-of-proof mode here. Liar. I have never said that. >Hey I bet you don't even have a St. Christopher medal on your bike! >Only an idiot would ride without one! I challenge you to prove they >are ineffective... I have a mojo that goes with me on any ride. I'd tell you about it and how it found me, but it would stretch your imagination to the point that you would become catatonic. Hmmm, maybe that would not be a bad thing to have happen. >>>Over a decade later the level of cycling is still no more than it was >>>pre-law, despite a substantial increase in population; in other >>>countries cycling has grown significantly in this time. Utility >>>cycling remains depressed. > >>Utility = ? If you mean commuting, I think that may be up in the US, >>others would have a better picture of that. I would commute but my >>work does not give me that option so I am relatively ignorant of their >>issues. > >Utility cycling is cycling for transport, not as a leisure journey. >Could be commuting, shopping, whatever. Okay, I re-questioned this above. I understand the term now. >>>Helmets have never been shown to reduce cyclist injury rates, but >>>injury rates *do* drop as the amount of cycling increases. The law >>>significantly increased the level of risk for each remaining rider. > >>Actually you are flat-assed wrong. The site itself points to those >>contrary studies: > >No, I am absolutely right. Helmets have never been shown to reduce >cyclist injury rates. What those studies show is that cyclists who >choose to wear helmets are less likely to have serious injuries - a >very different claim. But since these studies are all of the same >type, a type which is known to be wrong a lot of the time (indeed, >most widely-cited studies of this type are subsequently contradicted >or found to be substantially over-optimistic, according to recent >research), there is a need to conform their findings by other means. >If you can find a single country which can show a provable reduction >in cyclist head injury rates due to increasing helmet use you will be >doing rather better than our Department for Transport, which had to >admit recently that it knew of no such case. They have been shown as the list given proves. You cannot argue with the fact these studies were done and they had fidings of helmet safety. You lie when you make your statement that this has never been done, your own source makes you a liar. "A lot of the time" does not equate to never. >>Dorsch, 1987 >> -90% fatalities > >"In 1985 Dr Dorsch, an author of the source report, told an Australian >parliamentary committee that the conclusions of the study should be >treated with care. She said, "That was a hypothetical procedure based >largely on an adult group of cyclists"." > >>Thompson, Rivara, Thompson, 1989 >> -85% head injuries, -88% brain injuries > >Read that, have you? http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2006.pdf > >>Wasserman, 1990 >> -29% concussions, -82% skull fractures > >Read that, have you? No? Read it, and look for the other differences >between the groups. > >>McDermott, 1993 >> -39% head injuries, but no significant reduction for adults > >Read it and look for the other differences between the groups. > >>Thompson, Rivara, Thompson, 1996 >> -69% head injuries, -65% brain injuries > >Read it and look for the other differences between the groups. > >>However, that is as much information as the site gives versus chapter >>and verse to studies supporting its position. > >Because there are any number of sites promoting these figures, >especially the 85%/88% from the 1989 Seattle study, which is the most >widely cited in the world. However, that is not backed up by anything the helmet manufacturers say on their pages. BTW, I don't accept what they have written until I examine it. I am very jaded when it comes to advertising. As far as the studies, see way down below. >Interesting, though, that you cite these as reliable sources without >having read them. I have read them. I suggest you do to, especially >I suggest that you look at the 1989 Seattle study, especially tables 2 >and 3 versus table 5. I have not cited anything yet. Once again, you have stooped to lying about what I have or have not done. Are you a liar all the time or only when you have no point to make and are trying to cover your scrawny ass? I said that the big page everyone is hawking gives absolutely minimal coverage in terms of this listing (and a couple of other lines denigrating three other unnamed studies) and tries to claim it is a neutral and unbiased source. It is not. Get used to it. It has a definite axe to grind, but the way it has been put together, it sure fooled you about its supposed neutrality. >>>The real question is, why ask the question in the first place? The >>>law was passed based on the promise of 85% reductions in head >>>injuries. What actually happened was 0% reduction in head injury >>>rates and 1/3 reduction in numbers cycling. The law failed to deliver >>>what was promised, and delivered instead something unforeseen and >>>undesirable. Most people would consider that ample justification to >>>strike out a law. > >>I would never make a statement like it will reduce x to z. That is >>folly. > >Quite so. But the sites promoting helmets all say studies show that >helmets can prevent up to X% of head injuries) the X almost always >being 85%) and up to Y% of brain injuries (the Y almost always being >88%). They don't say that the same studies show they prevent an equal >proportion of leg injuries (which they do), or that some of the head >injuries "prevented" are to parts of the face not covered by the >helmet (which the studies tend to tapdance around), or that the brain >injuries concerned are almost all simple concussions with no lasting >consequences (brain injury sounds so much scarier than concussion, >doesn't it?) or that many of those head injuries are cuts and bruises >(head injury has a much better ring to it, doesn't it?). They have their studies and you have yours. You claim that you can use yours, but they cannot use theirs. That is a double standard. Hmmm, very interesting - Bell Helmets page on why you should wear one says, "Coming Soon." Haven't located Giro's - search takes me to sales sites, Amazon, etc., so cannot find anyhting there to support your claim of what they say relative to injury reduction. . . . Cratoni makes no such statements on their current pages. . . Giro's pages aren't loading. I'm missing a plug-in for my main browser. . . but so far you are 0 for 3 as far as making statements of specific safety by helmet manufacturers. Looks to me, so far, you are merely repeating from a source you fall in line with and have not reviewed these specific pages yourself. Hmmmm, hoping that is not the case, but if it is, it goes to something else I said, that people will readily accept anything that falls in line with their thoughts and rarely, if ever, check them out. >I used to think like you. And then I read the evidence which >underpinned that position, and realised I'd been duped. I suggest you >do the same. Go back and read the original sources, in detail, and >see if you can detect systemic bias on the part of the authors. >Remember, many of these authors were already openly in favour of >compulsion before they conducted the research! What I read of that one main site given raises redflags all over the place. As far as them being pro-helmet previously, the only proof of that would be prior studies and statements in the public record to thjat effect. Anyone can say anything about what they were at one time or another. Even you. But f it is not supported by evidence that can be collected, it is meaningless. Sorta like a lot of those, I was a republican and then I . . . >Go and read the sources. Working on it. You have had a head start, it takes time to catch up. jim                         Date: 07 Nov 2005 23:15:52 From: Colin McKenzie Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 15:09:53 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" > <uce@ftc.gov> wrote: >>I used to think like you. And then I read the evidence which >>underpinned that position, and realised I'd been duped. I suggest you >>do the same. Go back and read the original sources, in detail, and >>see if you can detect systemic bias on the part of the authors. >>Remember, many of these authors were already openly in favour of >>compulsion before they conducted the research! > > What I read of that one main site given raises redflags all over the > place. As far as them being pro-helmet previously, the only proof of > that would be prior studies and statements in the public record to > thjat effect. Anyone can say anything about what they were at one time > or another. Even you. But f it is not supported by evidence that can > be collected, it is meaningless... Happily, Guy left plenty of evidence of his former views on newsgroups a mere 3 or 4 years ago. One quote from him was on the lines of "it can't protect you if you don't wear one". Try Google. Open your mind, and be prepared to learn. Colin McKenzie                           Date: 11 Nov 2005 22:46:05 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:15:52 +0000, Colin McKenzie <news@proof-read.co.uk > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 15:09:53 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" >> <uce@ftc.gov> wrote: >>>I used to think like you. And then I read the evidence which >>>underpinned that position, and realised I'd been duped. I suggest you >>>do the same. Go back and read the original sources, in detail, and >>>see if you can detect systemic bias on the part of the authors. >>>Remember, many of these authors were already openly in favour of >>>compulsion before they conducted the research! >> >> What I read of that one main site given raises redflags all over the >> place. As far as them being pro-helmet previously, the only proof of >> that would be prior studies and statements in the public record to >> thjat effect. Anyone can say anything about what they were at one time >> or another. Even you. But f it is not supported by evidence that can >> be collected, it is meaningless... > >Happily, Guy left plenty of evidence of his former views on newsgroups >a mere 3 or 4 years ago. One quote from him was on the lines of "it >can't protect you if you don't wear one". Try Google. > >Open your mind, and be prepared to learn. > >Colin McKenzie > Google search for the quoted phrase results in this: Your search - "it can't protect you if you don't wear one" - did not match any documents. Trying groups.google.com That results in: advisor wanted ... One quote from him was on the lines of "it can't protect you if you don't wear one". Try Google. Open your mind, and be prepared to learn. Colin McKenzie alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent - Nov 7, 11:15 pm by Colin McKenzie - 195 messages - 23 authors Nada at this point. Would have been better for you to search first instead of having this type of result occur. jim                           Date: 11 Nov 2005 22:42:00 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:15:52 +0000, Colin McKenzie <news@proof-read.co.uk > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 15:09:53 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" >> <uce@ftc.gov> wrote: >>>I used to think like you. And then I read the evidence which >>>underpinned that position, and realised I'd been duped. I suggest you >>>do the same. Go back and read the original sources, in detail, and >>>see if you can detect systemic bias on the part of the authors. >>>Remember, many of these authors were already openly in favour of >>>compulsion before they conducted the research! >> >> What I read of that one main site given raises redflags all over the >> place. As far as them being pro-helmet previously, the only proof of >> that would be prior studies and statements in the public record to >> thjat effect. Anyone can say anything about what they were at one time >> or another. Even you. But f it is not supported by evidence that can >> be collected, it is meaningless... > >Happily, Guy left plenty of evidence of his former views on newsgroups >a mere 3 or 4 years ago. One quote from him was on the lines of "it >can't protect you if you don't wear one". Try Google. > >Open your mind, and be prepared to learn. > >Colin McKenzie > I'll do that. But his views stated "after" changing are irrelevant to the point. He has to demostrate that view PRIOR to the change. Otherwise, it is unsupported by evidence. jim                         Date: 06 Nov 2005 09:45:21 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > > See what you want to see. Until it strikes very close to your own > home, you're more than welcome. I wonder what you would say were a > child of yours injureed thusly about the relative safety of riding. > You take solace in the facts and figures. > I wonder what you would say if a child of yours suffered a head injury as a pedestrian through being hit by a motor vehicle, tripping and falling or being assaulted and they were not wearing a helmet to protect them? They are more likely to get a head injury of equal severity from an assault than from cycling and many many times more likely to get one as a pedestrian from the other categories. How will you console yourself for the fact you let them not wear a helmet while out walking? Perhaps you will take solace in the fact that you only saw what you wanted to see. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham                           Date: 11 Nov 2005 22:40:12 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 09:45:21 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> See what you want to see. Until it strikes very close to your own >> home, you're more than welcome. I wonder what you would say were a >> child of yours injureed thusly about the relative safety of riding. >> You take solace in the facts and figures. >> > >I wonder what you would say if a child of yours suffered a head injury >as a pedestrian through being hit by a motor vehicle, tripping and >falling or being assaulted and they were not wearing a helmet to protect >them? They are more likely to get a head injury of equal severity from >an assault than from cycling and many many times more likely to get one >as a pedestrian from the other categories. How will you console >yourself for the fact you let them not wear a helmet while out walking? > Perhaps you will take solace in the fact that you only saw what you >wanted to see. Perhaps you are as blind as I am then? jim                           Date: 06 Nov 2005 22:21:29 From: gotbent Subject: Re: advisor wanted now going on about monty python total snippage Excuse me, I looking for things bent and find an entire MP sketch going on and on saying the same thing time after time to the same few people. You British folk seem to hae an enourmously high tolerance to flatulent academic verbosity to go at this again for so long. Some of you must be incredibly fast typists, or don't mind screwing your employer by taking wages for turning out thousands of lines of prattle about how demonstrable your data are and how crap his data are. Give it a rest guys and goils. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---                             Date: 07 Nov 2005 08:07:12 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted now going on about monty python gotbent wrote: > total snippage > > Excuse me, I looking for things bent and find an entire MP sketch going on > and on saying the same thing time after time to the same few people. Are you here for the 5 min argument or the full half hour? > You British folk seem to hae an enourmously high tolerance to flatulent academic > verbosity to go at this again for so long. You've met our Prime Minister I see ;-) > Some of you must be incredibly > fast typists, or don't mind screwing your employer by taking wages for > turning out thousands of lines of prattle about how demonstrable your data > are and how crap his data are. Give it a rest guys and goils. > Its displacement activity for getting out and cycling in the gales and downpours of the last week plus we're jealous of Ensenada Jim and his California weather ;-) Tony -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham   Date: 31 Oct 2005 15:55:03 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted In <3sjvloFoesn7U1@individual.net >, on 10/30/05 at 01:21 PM, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > said: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> Well, you seem to want to be able to take all kinds of poetic license. >> Are you opposed to my doing the same? >So what poetic license have I taken? >It's like the scene in Jerry Maguire where Tom Cruise's client isn't >interested in Nice Words, he wants Tom's character to "show me the >money!". The change is I'm asking you to show me the casualty savings. >The data is there for you to look at, >governments with a vested interest in showing their mandatory helmet >laws have produced a beneficial effect haven't been able to find those >savings though. In the UK the government is pro-helmet and seeks to >encourage their use, yet in a written reply to a parliamentray question >the responsible minister had to admit there was no known case of helmets >being preoven to improve safety, and he had a whole department of civil >service statisticians to help him. >So: >"Show me the casualty savings!" The cost of an ER visit for stiitching of head wounds (simple) is well over $500. You can check that for yourself (US hospitals). Cost of a helmet <$100. Simple relationship. >> BS, and you know it. >Actually, I know it's true. Again, the data and research is out there >for several countries, so you show me the data that tells us the extent >to which compulsory seatbelt laws have improved things. Apples and oranges. Why is it when you do not have a csae you try to switch topics to something not directly related? >"Show me the casualty savings!" >> Nice that you have socialized medicine. We don't. But were you to go >> to the ER what do you figure it costs you in terms of paying yourself? >> If you are not aware of this factor, it means figuring out what the >> time in the hospital cost you in terms of how much an hour you get >> paid. The same principle can be applied to driving across town to save >> a dime a galloin on gas, FWIW. >But this assumes I'd be spending more time there. As the >neurosurgeon expert witnesses observed by Brian Walker pointed out, it >isn't actually as straightforward as a helmet makes you safer, period, >and as David Jamieson, UK Government Minister, had to admit, the [UK] >Government knows of no case where cyclist safety has improved with >increasing helmet use (and again I emphasize that this man is *pro* >helmet). That you spent ANY time there is the issue. Or did that go right over your head? >"Show me the casualty savings!" >> Again, where is your ddata on the non-reported accidnets? >Again, the non-serious accidents don't get reported, because they are by >definition not very serious. However, again I point out to you that if >serious accidents are being downgraded then there should be a drop in >the rate for serious injuries. There isn't. >"Show me the casualty savings!" Cost of ER visit versus <$100 for a helmet. If you can't do the math, I cannot help you. Must be the socialized school system problem. Let's see . . 1+1 = 2, 1+2 = 3, . . . >> The only trend visible here is that you are using apples to make a >> case about oranges and are rekably without any data concerning less >> than serious accidents. That is what is patently visible. >I'll tell you again. >The non-serious accidents don't get reported, because they are by >definition not very serious. However, again I point out to you that if >serious accidents are being downgraded then there should be a drop in >the rate for serious injuries. There isn't. And what part of a helmet may be responsible for the accident being non-seriopus do you not understand? >"Show me the casualty savings!" Boring. >> Tell it to the MIT researcher who was just fired for manupulating data >> and using false data. He got caught, but now everyone ois wondering >> about all the previous stuff that went through this process without >> detection. Tell it to the cold fusion gang, too. >The national figures for several different nations are widely available >in raw form to be used and interpreted by anyone as they see fit. Bogus >use tends to be found out in time, as this chap at MIT has discovered, >but since one is working with openly available data and there are lots >of folks who know what they're on about such cases don't remain at large >indefinitely. And we've been looking at these figures for a *long* time >now, and even with a vested interest in showing that the helmets they've >mandated are working well, governments who have introduced an MHL have >been conspicuous in their inability to show any clear casualty savings. Again, my comment stands up. A lot of bogus research is out there because of jacked up figures, created data and plain old not doing the math right. Thn there is failure to consider the proper vaiables and so on. >"Show me the casualty savings!" Still whining. I'll not repeat the relationship for you again. If ois has not penetrated your skell yet, maybe a rock will and then it will get in. >> See above. Even those folks you are waxing poetic about can be fooled. >> Happens all the time. >Why do you assume that it must be me that's been fooled, and it can't be >you. You seem to be working on nothing but assumptions. And you are working from brain farts and obstinincy. >"Show me the casualty savings!" Yada, yada, yada. . . >> Precisely, and what about that helmet in those situations? Did they >> prevent a serious injury to the point it bacame non-reportable? What >> would the cost have been had the lack of a helmet elevated that injury >> to a reportable one? ThatIS the problem with using one category of >> data to make a categorical statement about bike injuries. >Again I have to point out that if helmets are degrading serious injuries >to being non serious then that will have an affect on the serious >figures. That you don't catch them elsewhere doesn't affect a drop in >the serious figures, but there is no such drop. Unture. Otherwise, you would be able to post a citation to that very fact from the reesearch you are spewing without any though or analysis. Y9ou have failed to do that, substituting idiocy and obfuscation. >"Show me the casualty savings!" >> Hold it, now you seem to be on the other side. Either they work or >> they don't. >Don't be simplistic. A good thick leather jacket will protect against >stray duckshot quite effectively, but that doesn't mean it's worth a >damn against targeted high velocity rifle fire. Here we go again. . . Got anything that pretains directly to what we are talking about? Or are you merely trying to distract us from the fact, you ain't got jackshit to work with? >With regard to helmet efficacy (or not) I have been stating the point >that they are no proven use against serious head injuries. That is very >different to saving you a nasty graze and a headache. > I've had those doing housework, yet in common with almost the whole >population I don't feel the need for a helmet doing my housework. >> Not true. That is an ASSumption. >"Show me the casualty savings!" >> But, one or two or three at some point become those hundreds or >> thousands do they not? >They should, yes. So why do those thousands not add up to any >improvement? Perhaps the anecdotes aren't as clear as the reports >assume them to be? >"Show me the casualty savings!" >> Aggregate data is like a generalization. There are always exceptions. >> Anecdotal evidence is that one and two and three. . . >And since the aggregate is no change, that suggests that there are 2 or >3 the other way where they made things worse... >"Show me the casualty savings!" >> Getting up out of bed is far more hazardous. So what? Neither compare >> to cycling in any form. >But they do compare very well. Pedestrian serious injury rates from >RTAs have closely mirrored cyclist serious injury rates over the time >we've got figures for, and this happens in different countries too. >Where one jumps, the other jumps (as happened after compulsory seatbelt >legislation has been passed). So they do compare, because they act the >same way over time. One is an excellent control for the other. Apples and oranges yet again. Stick with bicycles and not with NON dangerous activities. Now, if you wany to make a case from something that is hazardous, try construction. Helmets are mandatory there, are they not? Racing cars and boats are dangerous sports and they require helmets. US style football is considered a dangerous sport, helmets are required. Getting the picture? >> walked far more miles than I have cycled over the last 14-15. Walking >> has only resulted in a tweaked ankle or two. >You might tell people on ventilators after being run over when they were >crossing the road that your anecdote is more meaningful than theirs. And what happened to them on their bikes? >One last thought, and you really should address this with real data >rather than on-the-fly assumptions, because the data is out there: Show me the data related to cycling helmets and non-serious injuries. You keep saying it is out there. But so far, you've only make that wild-assed claim and hav yet to present one single fact. Of course, your saying so don't make it so, depsite your delusions. So, Pete, let's see you get out of your rut and put up those figures related to helmets and non-serious injuries. But, while you are finding them, take a break from here and give us a well deserved break from you passing gas. jim -- ----------------------------------------------------------- ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com -----------------------------------------------------------     Date: 01 Nov 2005 08:37:14 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com wrote: > The cost of an ER visit for stiitching of head wounds (simple) is well > over $500. You can check that for yourself (US hospitals). Cost of a > helmet <$100. Simple relationship. I asked you to show me the casualty savings. You haven't. If the high cost of an ER visit will put people off then the figures for visiting them will go down if there's any reason for them to go down. So where are those figures. "Show me the casualty savings!" > Apples and oranges. Why is it when you do not have a csae you try to > switch topics to something not directly related? I was demonstrating a mechanism for how helmets can alter rider behaviour to put them in increased danger. Since we're talking about reducing danger it is completely relevant. "Show me the casualty savings!" > That you spent ANY time there is the issue. Or did that go right over your > head? If there is any reason to reduce ER time because helmets have helped, this will be reflected in the serious injury figures. "Show me the casualty savings!" > Cost of ER visit versus <$100 for a helmet. If you can't do the math, I > cannot help you. Must be the socialized school system problem. Let's see . > . 1+1 = 2, 1+2 = 3, . . . So show me a figure for overall lessening of visits by cyclists beyond a lessening of visits for pedestrians as cycle helmet wearing has increased. That is very, very simple maths, and is all you need to do. "Show me the casualty savings!" You have assumed that the $100 helmet will help. I am pointing out that if it does the number of ER visits for serious injuries must fall compared to the control group. So show me that. > And what part of a helmet may be responsible for the accident being > non-seriopus do you not understand? The bit that has no reduction in the serious injuries. You were telling me about arithmetic: how's this: We have ~1,000 serious head injuries a year. Helmets are suddenly introduced and save, let's say 85% of these, downgrading them to lesser problems or eliminating the problems altogether. Next year we only have 150 serious head injuries. So, show me where something like that has happened. It doesn't have to be 85%, just any clear gin above the rates for pedestrians where they have previously mirrored the cyclist rates. "Show me the casualty savings!" >>"Show me the casualty savings!" > Boring. But it's *all* you need to do to convince pretty much anyone that helmets are a clear benefit. And if they are a clear benefit it /should/ be easy to show that. Yet you haven't, and nor has anyone else, including folk with very big axes to grind on the matter who have been trying to demonstrate it on behalf of powerful government and commercial interests for years. Why do you think that is? > Again, my comment stands up. A lot of bogus research is out there because > of jacked up figures, created data and plain old not doing the math right. There certainly is. And the work that doesn't stand up is most often the work showing helmets to be a clear benefit. Thompson, Rivara and Thompson's 1989 is the most cited paper for helmet efficacy and it's a crash course in how /not/ to do science. Read it yourself, read the critiques yourself, ask how anything that bad could still be being trotted out as a reason to wear helmets after more than 15 years. Some work stands up, some doesn't. But you must remember the burden of proof falls *both* ways. Just as I have to demonstrate that helmets have no real effect on serious injuries, you have to demonstrate that they are a clear benefit across a population before you recommend them across a population. Or, put another way: "Show me the casualty savings!" > Still whining. I'll not repeat the relationship for you again. If ois has > not penetrated your skell yet, maybe a rock will and then it will get in. Do you /really/ think nobody else has come up with that line in the many years helmet efficacy has been researched. Do you think that the professional epidemiologists and statisticians haven't had it occur to them at all? "Show me the casualty savings!" That isn't whining, it is *all you have to do to convince me*. The data is there, so <Nike > Just Do It </Nike> and you can finish the helmet wars once and for all. >>"Show me the casualty savings!" > Yada, yada, yada. . . Rather than avoid it, why don't you confront the problem and do it? Rather than yada yada yadaing yourself, why don't you just demonstrate the casualty savings helmets have provided? My guess is you can't, but feel free to prove me wrong. > Unture. Otherwise, you would be able to post a citation to that very fact > from the reesearch you are spewing without any though or analysis. Y9ou > have failed to do that, substituting idiocy and obfuscation. What? I pointed you at a whole pile! There is no evidence you've been and looked though. > Here we go again. . . Got anything that pretains directly to what we are > talking about? Or are you merely trying to distract us from the fact, you > ain't got jackshit to work with? What? I pointed you at a whole pile! There is no evidence you've been and looked though. > Apples and oranges yet again. Stick with bicycles and not with NON > dangerous activities. So, since being a pedestrian isn't dangerous that means none of them ever get killed? Wrong. They get killed at comparable rates with comparable injuries to cyclists, as you'd know if you looked at the data. > Now, if you wany to make a case from something that > is hazardous, try construction. Helmets are mandatory there, are they not? > Racing cars and boats are dangerous sports and they require helmets. US > style football is considered a dangerous sport, helmets are required. > Getting the picture? Certainly. And utility cycling isn't actually very dangerous if you look at the figures. Oh, people get killed, yes, but they get killed as pedestrians and as occupants of cars with safety cages, seatbelts and airbags. The rates for serious injuries for cyclists compare, and historically have compared, to pedestrian rates. If you don't believe that do some research and point me to it rather than just inventing denials on the spot. >>You might tell people on ventilators after being run over when they were >>crossing the road that your anecdote is more meaningful than theirs. > And what happened to them on their bikes? Roughly the same thing at the same rates, as it happens, so again, why is your anecdote more meaningful than theirs? > Show me the data related to cycling helmets and non-serious injuries. You > keep saying it is out there. I haven't done anything of the sort. I have pointed out that non-serious aren't serious, rather by definition, so for safety you're looking at the serious ones. And if helmets remove serious injuries then the serious injury rates will go down. "Show me the casualty savings!" > But so far, you've only make that wild-assed > claim and hav yet to present one single fact. I pointed you at www.cyclehelmets.org as a good starting place as a repository of facts, with citations for all sides of the argument. > So, Pete, let's see you get out of your rut and put up those figures > related to helmets and non-serious injuries. They're not serious though, so nobody's got good figures for them, as I've said many times. But, hey! They're not serious! Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 31 Oct 2005 15:48:59 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted In <3sjtquFokem6U1@individual.net >, on 10/30/05 at 12:49 PM, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > said: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> It is misguided because it concerns only "serious" accidents and I'm >> betting you agree that far more less than "serious" accidents happen >> than serious. >Certainly "less than serious" accidents happen, but by their very nature >they aren't serious. I've banged my head a few times and drawn blood >doing housework, I'm not alone in that. I don't feel the need for a >hlemt doing it though, and I doubt you do either. Is housework considered a hazardous acitivity? No. So do not compare apples and oranges. A better comparison would be construction sites where helmets ARE required (at least in the US) because it is a dangerous activity. >> Where are the stats for those, the ones that without a >> helmet might have called for an ER visit and stitching? >If there were a significant number of those then there would be a drop >in the overall figures of serious injuries, but there aren't. That is an assumption. Unless, of course you can cite a study saying specifically that. >> Put -'em up if you gottem, but I'm lookin' forward to your sounds of >> silence. >They don't exist because they don't get to ER rooms. But they don't get >into the serious figures which they would have done otherwise, and the >serious head injury rates would have gone down accordingly. But they >haven't. >> Where is your data on non-serious injuries? Without any on your part, >> anecdotal evidence is better than your lack of information. >See above. For non-serious injuries they amount to basically >discomfort, /if/ I have one. A helmet means discomfort on 100% of >trips. >> Well, if it is that easy, why haven't you done it? >Why haven't I done what? You said it should be easy to get those studoes/facts . . . >> Really, how do you propose that be measured? They only measure srious >> injuries and have no data at all on those that walk away without a >> report being filed. >But if they meant a serious injury was /avoided/ then the annual rate of >serious injuries would be coming down, and would show a better trend >than that for pedestrians who have historically matched cyclist trends >for years since before helmets were introduced. This hasn't happened. >> Again, you are using apples to make statements about oranges and are >> clueless that you are doing it. >No I'm not. You read through the work at www.cyclehelmets.org and pick >the real holes in it. It's fully referenced so you can get back to the >sources. Sorry, Pete, you are. The study onlyu concerns serious injusries and nothing else. It misses taking into account a lot of variables that are imprtant to being able to make any categorical statement.\ jim -- ----------------------------------------------------------- ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com -----------------------------------------------------------     Date: 01 Nov 2005 08:04:01 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com wrote: > Is housework considered a hazardous acitivity? No. "considered", no, yet people are killed every year in domestic accidents. Try telling the victims that the house can't be a dangerous place (oh, you can't, because they're dead). It isn't very *likely* that you'll die, but it can happen. And that, when you look at the figures, is how it works for A to B cycling too. > So do not compare apples and oranges. I'm not, if you actually stop and look at it. Pedestrians make a very useful control because they have similar accidents to cyclists at similar rates, and have had for all the time we have records. > That is an assumption. Unless, of course you can cite a study saying > specifically that. That if there are reductions in serious to minor injuries that the serious injury totals will fall? It's very, very simple arithmetic. It is "common sense", and you don't have any better basis for /your/ assumption. > You said it should be easy to get those studoes/facts . . . I said it should be very easy to prove that helmets help /if they do/. I've looked at plenty of studies and facts, and what they tell me is there's no tangible reduction in serious injuries from helmet wearing. I even pointed you at www.cyclehelmets.org where there's a large collection, and a well referenced one at that, containing lots of citations both ways for anyone to study at their leisure. I have. Seems like you haven't. > Sorry, Pete, you are. The study onlyu concerns serious injusries and > nothing else. It misses taking into account a lot of variables that are > imprtant to being able to make any categorical statement.\ You're being rekably simplistic, as is evidenced by your use of singular "the study" for a huge collection of literature. It is easy to make a statement based on the serious injury data because it is controlled by the pedestrian data (demonstrably has been for years). And if we don't know the effect on minor injuries, well, they are by definition minor, and aren't going to get people killed. "Show me the casualty savings!" Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/       Date: 01 Nov 2005 22:52:59 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 08:04:01 +0000, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: >ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com wrote: > >> Is housework considered a hazardous acitivity? No. > >"considered", no, yet people are killed every year in domestic >accidents. Try telling the victims that the house can't be a dangerous >place (oh, you can't, because they're dead). It isn't very *likely* >that you'll die, but it can happen. And that, when you look at the >figures, is how it works for A to B cycling too. Yawn. You are boring. Where have I ever said anything about not having sympathy with people kileed stepping out of bathrubs? I haven't and you're being an arrogant and presumptious fool for trying to do so. I never said it ws not a dangerous place either. If you have stooped to such childish tactics, you lose. > >> So do not compare apples and oranges. > >I'm not, if you actually stop and look at it. Pedestrians make a very >useful control because they have similar accidents to cyclists at >similar rates, and have had for all the time we have records. You are despite your protestations. Get over it and move on. > >> That is an assumption. Unless, of course you can cite a study saying >> specifically that. > >That if there are reductions in serious to minor injuries that the >serious injury totals will fall? It's very, very simple arithmetic. It >is "common sense", and you don't have any better basis for /your/ >assumption. Got any case study we can look at? Evidently not. Thanks for confiming that. >> You said it should be easy to get those studoes/facts . . . > >I said it should be very easy to prove that helmets help /if they do/. >I've looked at plenty of studies and facts, and what they tell me is >there's no tangible reduction in serious injuries from helmet wearing. You have looked at everytthing except the non-serious injury studies, alhtough you attempt to make it look like you have. >I even pointed you at www.cyclehelmets.org where there's a large >collection, and a well referenced one at that, containing lots of >citations both ways for anyone to study at their leisure. I have. >Seems like you haven't. > >> Sorry, Pete, you are. The study onlyu concerns serious injusries and >> nothing else. It misses taking into account a lot of variables that are >> imprtant to being able to make any categorical statement.\ > >You're being rekably simplistic, as is evidenced by your use of >singular "the study" for a huge collection of literature. It is easy to >make a statement based on the serious injury data because it is >controlled by the pedestrian data (demonstrably has been for years). >And if we don't know the effect on minor injuries, well, they are by >definition minor, and aren't going to get people killed. So, do you agree with me that helmets may be responsible for a portion of those non-serious injuries being prevented from becoming serious? jim         Date: 02 Nov 2005 08:50:14 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > So, do you agree with me that helmets may be responsible for a portion > of those non-serious injuries being prevented from becoming serious? If that is the case then why do you think the rates from serious injuries will be unaffected by the increasing use of helmets relative to when no helmets were used? As for "may do", what "may" happen has a burden of proof both ways. Where do you have any proof of your assertion? If there is none, why should anyone treat it as /necessarily/ true? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/           Date: 02 Nov 2005 13:12:22 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 08:50:14 +0000, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >> So, do you agree with me that helmets may be responsible for a portion >> of those non-serious injuries being prevented from becoming serious? > >If that is the case then why do you think the rates from serious >injuries will be unaffected by the increasing use of helmets relative to >when no helmets were used? Yes I do, because they go UNREPORTED and officially do not exist. There is no way to account for them in the report so they are ignored. >As for "may do", what "may" happen has a burden of proof both ways. >Where do you have any proof of your assertion? If there is none, why >should anyone treat it as /necessarily/ true? Actually, I was riding with a couple I knew and they were witness to it, of course, you can raise the same bogus red herring with their existence as you just have with me. I'd say you're stooping further down. Why should I treat you as anything other than a troll? > >Pete.             Date: 02 Nov 2005 22:05:58 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > Yes I do, because they go UNREPORTED and officially do not exist. > There is no way to account for them in the report so they are ignored. Deary me, here we go *again* We have historical data, that goes back to before helmets were in use, and we can show the way that the reported, serious injuries change with time. And we can see from that that there is no detectable change caused by increased helmet use, which there would be if effective helmets were removing accidents from the reported data, because the rates would be dropping as it would appear there weren't any accidents happening. I find it hard to believe you're so obtuse you can't grasp the arithmetic underlying this, so why not read the work yourself and then you may develop a better understanding? Can't understand it or won't try? If neither, why not? Are you arrogant enough to think you have all the answers yourself based on your own anecdotes? > Actually, I was riding with a couple I knew and they were witness to > it, of course, you can raise the same bogus red herring with their > existence as you just have with me. I'd say you're stooping further > down. For "burden of proof" I do not mean your personal anecdote, I mean your assertion that it is irresponsible to suggest to people that they aren't necessarily better off wearing helmets. I fully believe your personal anecdote. I know it doesn't prove your case because your logic is faulty, however. > Why should I treat you as anything other than a troll? Up to you, but several articulate posters have given you citations which you've quite evidently not bothered to read, rather you've arrogantly decided you know it all and repeated a fallacy time after time which shows you have absolutely no grasp of the issue, or of very basic statistics, whatsoever. Perhaps if you read some of the work you've been pointed at you might grasp a clue, but in the meantime the thread has hopefully been instructive to others that a helmet isn't the obvious beneficial thing it is widely assumed to be. If you think I'm dumb then take your issue on to the people getting the research you haven't bothered to read published. You'd best start by reading their work so you actually have a basis to argue from, not that that's stopped you so far. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/               Date: 02 Nov 2005 22:35:10 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:05:58 +0000, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >> Yes I do, because they go UNREPORTED and officially do not exist. >> There is no way to account for them in the report so they are ignored. > >Deary me, here we go *again* > >We have historical data, that goes back to before helmets were in >use, and we can show the way that the reported, serious injuries >change with time. And we can see from that that there is no >detectable change caused by increased helmet use, which there would >be if effective helmets were removing accidents from the reported >data, because the rates would be dropping as it would appear there >weren't any accidents happening. does that historical data also include all the information about non-seriopus injuries and does it include parameters for the increase of vehicular traffic and all that kind of stuff? Histoprical info is interesting, but the riding environment has changed. >I find it hard to believe you're so obtuse you can't grasp the >arithmetic underlying this, so why not read the work yourself and >then you may develop a better understanding? Can't understand it >or won't try? If neither, why not? Are you arrogant enough to >think you have all the answers yourself based on your own anecdotes? I am questioning the data collection and reporting. The numbers are meaningless in that context. What part of that goes over your head? If the study is flawed, the information is interesting, but flawed. Get that simple relationship? >> Actually, I was riding with a couple I knew and they were witness to >> it, of course, you can raise the same bogus red herring with their >> existence as you just have with me. I'd say you're stooping further >> down. > >For "burden of proof" I do not mean your personal anecdote, I mean >your assertion that it is irresponsible to suggest to people that >they aren't necessarily better off wearing helmets. I fully >believe your personal anecdote. I know it doesn't prove your case >because your logic is faulty, however. The problem is you are saying: helmets don;t work. That is not the case. They do. To be accurate, your advice should be: statistically, helmets do not improve your chances in a serious accident. However, those staistics mean nothing if you are the one drawing the short straw. Unless you can prove conclusively that helmets DO kill the wearers. You cannot even handle the concept of a flawed study. It happens. In that context, your logic is irrelevant. >If you think I'm dumb then take your issue on to the people getting >the research you haven't bothered to read published. You'd best >start by reading their work so you actually have a basis to argue >from, not that that's stopped you so far. I have been questioning the research and I have yet to see where any of the studies you or others pose with addressing non-serious injuries. Get it? Jowever, you keep making the flaw of saying that what applies to serious injuries has to apply to non-serious injuries. That IS flawed logic. Be careful of that glass house you live in. jim                 Date: 03 Nov 2005 16:51:12 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:35:10 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in <6dbjm1psakjcgh4bsl121pgqjmecsth61o@4ax.com >: >does that historical data also include all the information about >non-seriopus injuries and does it include parameters for the increase >of vehicular traffic and all that kind of stuff? Histoprical info is >interesting, but the riding environment has changed. This point might have some merit if it weren't for the fact that a similar lack of effect has been observed when wearing rates increase from below 50% to over 90% in a single year. And if it weren't a clear reversal of the burden of proof. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken               Date: 03 Nov 2005 05:45:44 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:05:58 +0000, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >> Yes I do, because they go UNREPORTED and officially do not exist. >> There is no way to account for them in the report so they are ignored. > >Deary me, here we go *again* > >We have historical data, that goes back to before helmets were in >use, and we can show the way that the reported, serious injuries >change with time. And we can see from that that there is no >detectable change caused by increased helmet use, which there would >be if effective helmets were removing accidents from the reported >data, because the rates would be dropping as it would appear there >weren't any accidents happening You're forgeting to factor in the 'general population losing inteligence' theory that would have raised those rates if not for h*lm*t use. There is anecdotal evidence suggesting this effect began kicking in about the same time Belle began thier h*lm*t keting cough(brainwashing)cough campaign. More diect evidence of individuals affected can sometimes be found in various threads on Usenet. Indiana MIke >               Date: 03 Nov 2005 04:34:10 From: Bill Patterson Subject: Re: advisor wanted Just remember, the incredible down side of the helmet cult in the United Sates is the number of people who are discouraged from riding bicycles. I had friends who wouldn't ride with me because of the necessity of using a helmet. They are dead from emphysema and heart attacks. How much damage does the helmet cult do to us? Peter Clinch wrote: > ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >> Yes I do, because they go UNREPORTED and officially do not exist. >> There is no way to account for them in the report so they are ignored. > > > Deary me, here we go *again* > > We have historical data, that goes back to before helmets were in use, > and we can show the way that the reported, serious injuries change with > time. And we can see from that that there is no detectable change > caused by increased helmet use, snip > > Pete. -- See bikes at: http://home.earthlink.net/~wm.patterson/index.html See bikes and the first human powered helicopter at: http://www.calpoly.edu/~wpatters/ Reply to wm.patterson@earthlink.net wpatters@calpoly.edu william.patterson@1962.usna.com                 Date: 02 Nov 2005 22:37:10 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 04:34:10 GMT, Bill Patterson <wm.patterson@earthlink.net > wrote: >Just remember, the incredible down side of the helmet cult in the United >Sates is the number of people who are discouraged from riding bicycles. > >I had friends who wouldn't ride with me because of the necessity of >using a helmet. They are dead from emphysema and heart attacks. > >How much damage does the helmet cult do to us? If they let a helmet discourage them from riding, they got what they wanted. jim               Date: 02 Nov 2005 22:56:10 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:05:58 +0000, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > said in <3ssrhsFprv6lU1@individual.net>: >Are you arrogant enough to >think you have all the answers yourself based on your own anecdotes? You have to ask? Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken                 Date: 03 Nov 2005 08:59:29 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: > On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:05:58 +0000, Peter Clinch > <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> said in <3ssrhsFprv6lU1@individual.net>: >>Are you arrogant enough to >>think you have all the answers yourself based on your own anecdotes? > You have to ask? Sure: it might be /just/ basic numptiness... Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 31 Oct 2005 15:45:04 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted In <11m9vr7jddiefc7@corp.supernews.com >, on 10/30/05 at 10:12 AM, Rich <richa_colorado@yahoo.com > said: >Tony Raven wrote: > > In the US, in 1991 18% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 568,000 >> cyclist accidents requiring hospital treatment. 12% were head injuries. >> By 2000, 30% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 627,160 cyclist > >accidents. 12% were head injuries. So whatever all those extra helmets >> were doing they were not reducing head injuries. >> >> In the UK the proportion of female under-16 cyclists wearing helmets is >> double that of males. The proportion female under 16 cyclists suffering >> head injuries is virtually identical to that of males. So whatever all >> those extra helmets are doing for the girls, they are not protecting >> them from head injuries. >> >> The country with the lowest head injury rate for cyclists is Holland. >> They also have the lowest helmet wearing rate in the developed world at >> 0.1%. Curiously the USA is the reverse with six times the death rate per >> km cycled and a 38% helmet wearing rate. >> >> In Australia where helmets are mandatory and enforced, one state has >> repealed the helmet law. That state now has the highest cycling rate >> and lowest head injury rate in Australia. >Very interesting information, and I'd like to read more. Can you post >links to the studies or web sites where you got them? There is another set of factors operating here that all this ignores and that is most European countries are cyclist friendly. I do not know about Australia, but the US is not cyclist friendly. I've had seveal encounters where I've had drivers deliberately squueze me to the side of the road and hazards there while yelling that I should get off the road and on the sidewalk. Even had someone tell me they hoped some driver would run over me. Te wstats are interesting, but a good portion of what is NOT discussed is driver's attitudes on cyclists on the road. Until that can be equated, they are interesitng but do not reflect the actual riding conditions. jim -- ----------------------------------------------------------- ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com -----------------------------------------------------------     Date: 01 Nov 2005 13:21:47 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com wrote: > > Te wstats are interesting, but a good portion of what is NOT discussed is > driver's attitudes on cyclists on the road. Until that can be equated, > they are interesitng but do not reflect the actual riding conditions. > The common feature of all the stats, even for cycle friendly Holland, is that the characteristics of the accidents that happen are virtually identical and involve being hit by a motor vehicle most of the time. In what way is a helmet going to protect you from being hit by a motor vehicle in the US that its not going to do being hit by a motor vehicle in Australia or Holland? And how is your helmet going to stop them shouting at you but not actually running you over? -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham       Date: 01 Nov 2005 22:57:53 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:21:47 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > wrote: >ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> Te wstats are interesting, but a good portion of what is NOT discussed is >> driver's attitudes on cyclists on the road. Until that can be equated, >> they are interesitng but do not reflect the actual riding conditions. >> > >The common feature of all the stats, even for cycle friendly Holland, is >that the characteristics of the accidents that happen are virtually >identical and involve being hit by a motor vehicle most of the time. In >what way is a helmet going to protect you from being hit by a motor >vehicle in the US that its not going to do being hit by a motor vehicle >in Australia or Holland? And how is your helmet going to stop them >shouting at you but not actually running you over? Apples and oranges Tony. I can lead you to water, but if you don't want to drink, so be it. jim         Date: 02 Nov 2005 07:35:46 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:21:47 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> > wrote: > >> ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com wrote: >>> Te wstats are interesting, but a good portion of what is NOT discussed is >>> driver's attitudes on cyclists on the road. Until that can be equated, >>> they are interesitng but do not reflect the actual riding conditions. >>> >> The common feature of all the stats, even for cycle friendly Holland, is >> that the characteristics of the accidents that happen are virtually >> identical and involve being hit by a motor vehicle most of the time. In >> what way is a helmet going to protect you from being hit by a motor >> vehicle in the US that its not going to do being hit by a motor vehicle >> in Australia or Holland? And how is your helmet going to stop them >> shouting at you but not actually running you over? > > > Apples and oranges Tony. I can lead you to water, but if you don't > want to drink, so be it. > You really are fixated on those fruits aren't you. I wish you would lead me somewhere. So far your wells have been dry. How about you produce some data where whole population studies have shown an improvement in injury rates (of any sort) through increases in helmet wearing rates? -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham           Date: 02 Nov 2005 12:44:59 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 07:35:46 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:21:47 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> >> wrote: >> >>> ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com wrote: >>>> Te wstats are interesting, but a good portion of what is NOT discussed is >>>> driver's attitudes on cyclists on the road. Until that can be equated, >>>> they are interesitng but do not reflect the actual riding conditions. >>>> >>> The common feature of all the stats, even for cycle friendly Holland, is >>> that the characteristics of the accidents that happen are virtually >>> identical and involve being hit by a motor vehicle most of the time. In >>> what way is a helmet going to protect you from being hit by a motor >>> vehicle in the US that its not going to do being hit by a motor vehicle >>> in Australia or Holland? And how is your helmet going to stop them >>> shouting at you but not actually running you over? >> >> >> Apples and oranges Tony. I can lead you to water, but if you don't >> want to drink, so be it. >> > >You really are fixated on those fruits aren't you. I wish you would >lead me somewhere. So far your wells have been dry. How about you >produce some data where whole population studies have shown an >improvement in injury rates (of any sort) through increases in helmet >wearing rates? The point, once again, has gone right past you without notice. You related to pete? The studies that have been crted only deal with SERIOUS injuries. Got that? Is it possible that helmets have prevented or lessened some would-be SERIOUS injuries enough that no hospital visit was required? Got that? As there is no hospital visit , those NON-SERIOUS injuries do not exist in hospital data. Got that? Therfore the information on these injuries are not included in the research because they are derived from those official sources of data. Got that? Connect the dots. jim             Date: 03 Nov 2005 04:18:12 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:44:59 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > > >Got that? > >Therfore the information on these injuries are not included in the >research because they are derived from those official sources of data. And since the data showed no change with or without h*lm*t use can you not admit that they must cause about as many problems as they prevent? Because I can't think of another reason the injury rate (as a percentage, right?) wouldn't have been affected in the studies (notice the plural noun there, I say), but they weren't, were they? I thought I had it, but let me ask straight out. Are you saying that h*lm*ts are not designed to protect in the event of a serious accident, and that you advocate them for the prevention of minor injury? Or has Bell (tm) been sucessful in your brainwashing? Indiana Mike               Date: 02 Nov 2005 23:17:17 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 04:18:12 GMT, Mike Rice <jodymike@gte.net > wrote: >On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:44:59 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >> >> >>Got that? >> >>Therfore the information on these injuries are not included in the >>research because they are derived from those official sources of data. > >And since the data showed no change with or without h*lm*t use can you >not admit that they must cause about as many problems as they prevent? Whn it comes to serious injuries, I would accept the data as it is presented. However, I also realize that I, or for that matter - anyone here - might become that case whre the helmet actually caused the death by strangulation in the straps. Interesting, I'll have to look and see if the researchers allowed for the improper wearing of helmets as one reason rates have not dropped. I've seen far too many kids with helmets on backwards or with straps on so loose or ot attached at all, the helmet could twist and do some serious damage. >Because I can't think of another reason the injury rate (as a >percentage, right?) wouldn't have been affected in the studies (notice >the plural noun there, I say), but they weren't, were they? > >I thought I had it, but let me ask straight out. Are you saying that >h*lm*ts are not designed to protect in the event of a serious >accident, and that you advocate them for the prevention of minor >injury? No helmet on the ket can prvent serious injury or death in all cases. If you headered into a boulder at 35 mph, your helmet would probably best contain some of the splattering. In others, it may prevent you head from contacting something that may cause serious injury. > >Or has Bell (tm) been sucessful in your brainwashing? I learned about helmets on the football field far before they were used by cyclists. I learned about them in aircraft far before I ever saw a cyclist wearing one. I learned about helmets while racing cars far before I ever wore one on a bike. I happen to have a bell, simply because it was on sale at the time I was buying one, not because of any advertising. I was riding well before I ever looked at a bike mag and I was already using a helmet. So, bell has had no influence. I have sene their ads, but not read them. The zocchi girl had my attention. I also wear my seatbelt 100% of the time. (NO, pete, not while I'm on a bike, but while driving! ;- >). jim     Date: 01 Nov 2005 07:53:49 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com wrote: > There is another set of factors operating here that all this ignores and > that is most European countries are cyclist friendly. Nobody has told the figures gathered in the US that so they remain oblivious to it. Please cite some that show me some casualty savings for helmet wearing. > Te wstats are interesting, but a good portion of what is NOT discussed is > driver's attitudes on cyclists on the road. Until that can be equated, > they are interesitng but do not reflect the actual riding conditions. If they're gathered in the US, of course they do. Please cite some that show me some casualty savings for helmet wearing. Until that is done, why assume you /must/ be better off with a helmet? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/       Date: 01 Nov 2005 22:53:46 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 07:53:49 +0000, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > brain farted and said nothing: jim         Date: 02 Nov 2005 08:52:33 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 07:53:49 +0000, Peter Clinch > <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> brain farted and said nothing: Still can't demonstrate any casualty savings from helmet use, I see... That really is the bottom line for saying people should wear them to make themselves safer. And if helmets make people safer that should be shown by casualty savings. So where are they? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/           Date: 02 Nov 2005 13:06:31 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 08:52:33 +0000, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 07:53:49 +0000, Peter Clinch >> <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> brain farted and said nothing: > >Still can't demonstrate any casualty savings from helmet use, I see... > >That really is the bottom line for saying people should wear them to >make themselves safer. And if helmets make people safer that should be >shown by casualty savings. So where are they? Wrong, pete, non-reported injuries are precisley those that are not accounted for. Serious injuries get reported by ambulances, hospitals, police, insurance companies and records are made. NON-serious injuries are not (did you report your ankle sprain to any of the above? Probably not.). As they are not reported, no casualty company can report on them because, as they have not been reported, they "officially" do not exist, (even though you did sprain that ankle). That; is where these studies fail - they do not account for any injuries that do not have some report on it. That is why they solely address "serious" injuries because there is a paper trail. Among those non-reported injuries are cases like mine that exist only anecdotally simply because my helmet prevented something from becoming serious, and therefore, reportable. jim             Date: 03 Nov 2005 04:08:24 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 13:06:31 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >Snip> >Among those non-reported injuries are cases like mine that exist only >anecdotally simply because my helmet prevented something from becoming >serious, and therefore, reportable. > > >jim > You know, I went to the site and looked over some of the studies. I think if I cross my eyes and hold my lower lip just so they prove beyond any doubt that h*lm*t use has stemmed the (otherwise inescapable) rise in serious head injuries. This proves incontrovertiably that the population is getting dumber, or at least less skilled as riders, or the serious injury rate would have fallen by now. Have I got it? Indiana Mike               Date: 03 Nov 2005 08:18:24 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted Mike Rice wrote: > On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 13:06:31 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >> Snip> >> Among those non-reported injuries are cases like mine that exist only >> anecdotally simply because my helmet prevented something from becoming >> serious, and therefore, reportable. >> >> >> jim >> > > You know, I went to the site and looked over some of the studies. I > think if I cross my eyes and hold my lower lip just so they prove > beyond any doubt that h*lm*t use has stemmed the (otherwise > inescapable) rise in serious head injuries. > > This proves incontrovertiably that the population is getting dumber, > or at least less skilled as riders, or the serious injury rate would > have fallen by now. > > Have I got it? > Tell you what Mike, first stop standing on your head 'cos in crossing your eyes and holding your lip you have turned the graphs upside down. Now when you are standing the right way up take my challenge. On http://www.cycling.raven-family.com/Helmet%20Graphs.jpg I have reproduced two graphs of head injury rates in cyclists against year for two countries. In both countries mandatory helmet laws were introduced that doubled helmet wearing in both cases from one year to the next. Look at the graphs and using your skill and judgement tell me on which year (tick k on the x-axis) the helmet laws were introduced. (Hint: If helmet promoters are correct it will be the year when head injuries halved so should be really easy to spot ;-) ) -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham                 Date: 04 Nov 2005 02:22:26 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 08:18:24 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > wrote: >Mike Rice wrote: >> On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 13:06:31 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> >>> Snip> >>> Among those non-reported injuries are cases like mine that exist only >>> anecdotally simply because my helmet prevented something from becoming >>> serious, and therefore, reportable. >>> >>> >>> jim >>> >> >> You know, I went to the site and looked over some of the studies. I >> think if I cross my eyes and hold my lower lip just so they prove >> beyond any doubt that h*lm*t use has stemmed the (otherwise >> inescapable) rise in serious head injuries. >> >> This proves incontrovertiably that the population is getting dumber, >> or at least less skilled as riders, or the serious injury rate would >> have fallen by now. >> >> Have I got it? >> > >Tell you what Mike, first stop standing on your head 'cos in crossing >your eyes and holding your lip you have turned the graphs upside down. >Now when you are standing the right way up take my challenge. > >On http://www.cycling.raven-family.com/Helmet%20Graphs.jpg I have >reproduced two graphs of head injury rates in cyclists against year for >two countries. In both countries mandatory helmet laws were introduced >that doubled helmet wearing in both cases from one year to the next. >Look at the graphs and using your skill and judgement tell me on which >year (tick k on the x-axis) the helmet laws were introduced. (Hint: >If helmet promoters are correct it will be the year when head injuries >halved so should be really easy to spot ;-) ) You're not getting me that easily. I know graphs can be manipulated! Plus I'm kinda stuck upside down here, so I won't be bothered by any facts. Thanks anyway, Indiana Mike               Date: 02 Nov 2005 23:06:04 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 04:08:24 GMT, Mike Rice <jodymike@gte.net > wrote: >On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 13:06:31 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >>Snip> >>Among those non-reported injuries are cases like mine that exist only >>anecdotally simply because my helmet prevented something from becoming >>serious, and therefore, reportable. >> >> >>jim >> > >You know, I went to the site and looked over some of the studies. I >think if I cross my eyes and hold my lower lip just so they prove >beyond any doubt that h*lm*t use has stemmed the (otherwise >inescapable) rise in serious head injuries. > >This proves incontrovertiably that the population is getting dumber, >or at least less skilled as riders, or the serious injury rate would >have fallen by now. > >Have I got it? ;- > jim       Date: 01 Nov 2005 13:28:57 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted Peter Clinch wrote: > ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com wrote: > >> There is another set of factors operating here that all this ignores and >> that is most European countries are cyclist friendly. > > Nobody has told the figures gathered in the US that so they remain > oblivious to it. Please cite some that show me some casualty savings > for helmet wearing. > Can I cite the largest survey ever carried out*, of over 8 million cases of injury and death to cyclists in the USA over 15 years, concluded that there was no evidence that helmets had reduced head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, it suggested that helmeted riders were more likely to be killed. * Reducing Bicycle Accidents: A re-evaluation of the impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Rodgers. Journal of Product Liability, Vol 11 pp 307-317, 1988. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham         Date: 01 Nov 2005 22:55:18 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:28:57 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > wrote: >Peter Clinch wrote: >> ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com wrote: >> >>> There is another set of factors operating here that all this ignores and >>> that is most European countries are cyclist friendly. >> >> Nobody has told the figures gathered in the US that so they remain >> oblivious to it. Please cite some that show me some casualty savings >> for helmet wearing. >> > >Can I cite the largest survey ever carried out*, of over 8 >million cases of injury and death to cyclists in the USA over 15 >years, concluded that there was no evidence that helmets had reduced >head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, it suggested that helmeted >riders were more likely to be killed. > >* Reducing Bicycle Accidents: A re-evaluation of the impacts of the >CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Rodgers. Journal of Product >Liability, Vol 11 pp 307-317, 1988. Hmmm and not a word about th reduction from serious to non-serious, eh? jim           Date: 02 Nov 2005 08:56:22 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:28:57 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> > wrote: >>Can I cite the largest survey ever carried out*, of over 8 >>million cases of injury and death to cyclists in the USA over 15 >>years, concluded that there was no evidence that helmets had reduced >>head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, it suggested that helmeted >>riders were more likely to be killed. > Hmmm and not a word about th reduction from serious to non-serious, > eh? How can you tell without reading it that "head injury" refers purely to serious head injuries? And even assuming some do go from serious to non-serious, how will that *not* affect the serious rates, by reducing them? After all, if you've removed serious injuries by downgrading them, then there must be fewer serious injuries. Still not a word from you about how that would not be the case, and not a word of proof from you that any injuries are taken from serious to non-serious. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/             Date: 02 Nov 2005 12:59:15 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 08:56:22 +0000, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:28:57 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> >> wrote: > >>>Can I cite the largest survey ever carried out*, of over 8 >>>million cases of injury and death to cyclists in the USA over 15 >>>years, concluded that there was no evidence that helmets had reduced >>>head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, it suggested that helmeted >>>riders were more likely to be killed. > >> Hmmm and not a word about th reduction from serious to non-serious, >> eh? > >How can you tell without reading it that "head injury" refers purely to >serious head injuries? > >And even assuming some do go from serious to non-serious, how will that >*not* affect the serious rates, by reducing them? After all, if you've >removed serious injuries by downgrading them, then there must be fewer >serious injuries. Still not a word from you about how that would not be >the case, and not a word of proof from you that any injuries are taken >from serious to non-serious. Pete, I've reached the conclusion that you about as dense as the sun's core. Where was the actual data for the study collected? Was anyone here surveyed for any of these studies? The information, more than likely , came from official reports compiled by hospitals, ambulance incident reports, and/or insurance data. So, if you had an accdent and did not have an ambulance call, visit to the hospital or file a insurace claim, your accident, officially, does not exist. As such, it was not included in the research because the rsearch addresses only reported injuries of a SERIOUS nature. There is an entire category of injuries was not included in the study. NON-REPORTED/non-serious injuries. jim               Date: 03 Nov 2005 03:56:31 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:59:15 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 08:56:22 +0000, Peter Clinch ><p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > >>ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >>> On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:28:57 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> >>> wrote: >> >>>>Can I cite the largest survey ever carried out*, of over 8 >>>>million cases of injury and death to cyclists in the USA over 15 >>>>years, concluded that there was no evidence that helmets had reduced >>>>head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, it suggested that helmeted >>>>riders were more likely to be killed. >> >>> Hmmm and not a word about th reduction from serious to non-serious, >>> eh? >> >>How can you tell without reading it that "head injury" refers purely to >>serious head injuries? >> >>And even assuming some do go from serious to non-serious, how will that >>*not* affect the serious rates, by reducing them? After all, if you've >>removed serious injuries by downgrading them, then there must be fewer >>serious injuries. Still not a word from you about how that would not be >>the case, and not a word of proof from you that any injuries are taken >>from serious to non-serious. > >Pete, I've reached the conclusion that you about as dense as the sun's >core. > >Where was the actual data for the study collected? > >Was anyone here surveyed for any of these studies? > >The information, more than likely , came from official reports >compiled by hospitals, ambulance incident reports, and/or insurance >data. > >So, if you had an accdent and did not have an ambulance call, visit to >the hospital or file a insurace claim, your accident, officially, does >not exist. As such, it was not included in the research because the >rsearch addresses only reported injuries of a SERIOUS nature. > >There is an entire category of injuries was not included in the study. >NON-REPORTED/non-serious injuries. > > >jim Jeez, sounds like you're admitting that the reported injuries, the SERIOUS ones (sic), are not reduced by h*lm*t use. To many riders the very low risk of an unprotected non-serious accident dosen't justify the percieved discomfort of the device. We've all been brainwashed by the h*lm*t keting machine, they are only designed to protect at low speeds, and have not shown any demonstrable effect on the rate of recorded head injuries, and both sides seem to agree the non reported injuries were not serioous ones. You guys keep repeating this info 'til the cows come home. If you can come up with any way to add abreath of fresh air to this thread, please do. It's ever so faintly starting to smell of expired equine. Indiana Mike PS-I wear one for the ventilated shade, plus I have a theory that drivers could have slightly more respect for riders so equipped. Although I know the stats don't seem to say so.                 Date: 03 Nov 2005 08:43:46 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted Mike Rice wrote: > > You guys keep repeating this info 'til the cows come home. If you can > come up with any way to add abreath of fresh air to this thread, > please do. > > It's ever so faintly starting to smell of expired equine. > You're right and I'm bored. Jim is convinced that wearing a helmet is important to reduce the number of non-injuries he has and nothing is going to change his world view. Let him live at peace in his helmet solving a non-problem. A man noticed his next door neighbour walking round the garden scattering tiny pieces of paper around. "What are you doing scattering all those pieces of paper around?" he asks "Keeping the elephants away" say the neighbour "But we don't have elephants in this country!" "I know, effective isn't it" -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham                   Date: 05 Nov 2005 00:03:45 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 08:43:46 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > brain farted nothing: jim                 Date: 03 Nov 2005 08:02:35 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted Mike Rice wrote: > > PS-I wear one for the ventilated shade, plus I have a theory that > drivers could have slightly more respect for riders so equipped. > Although I know the stats don't seem to say so. > That's an interesting one. I used to wear (and believe in) helmets until I started reading the research behind them. The thing that I really noticed when I started riding without one is how much more care motorists took around me. I can only assume it is because they see me as a person with a head and a face and not a helmet on a bike. There is some government funded research starting in the UK this month at the University of Bath that will be mounting measuring equipment on bikes and measuring how much room motorists give cyclists with and without helmets and also with where the cyclist positions themselves on the road. It will be interesting to get some real, rather than anecdotal data on this. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham                   Date: 05 Nov 2005 00:02:31 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 08:02:35 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > wrote: >Mike Rice wrote: >> >> PS-I wear one for the ventilated shade, plus I have a theory that >> drivers could have slightly more respect for riders so equipped. >> Although I know the stats don't seem to say so. >> > >That's an interesting one. I used to wear (and believe in) helmets >until I started reading the research behind them. The thing that I >really noticed when I started riding without one is how much more care >motorists took around me. I can only assume it is because they see me >as a person with a head and a face and not a helmet on a bike. Yep, one of them thar interveining variables I was mentioning - wiithout a helmet both rider and motorist may be more careful around each other. Lessens the incidents, thjough. >There is some government funded research starting in the UK this month >at the University of Bath that will be mounting measuring equipment on >bikes and measuring how much room motorists give cyclists with and >without helmets and also with where the cyclist positions themselves on >the road. It will be interesting to get some real, rather than >anecdotal data on this. Now that will be interesting. However, the cyclists will have to maintain their normal riding style to keep the figures from sewing one way or another. jim                     Date: 05 Nov 2005 20:28:59 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 00:02:31 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >>There is some government funded research starting in the UK this month >>at the University of Bath that will be mounting measuring equipment on >>bikes and measuring how much room motorists give cyclists with and >>without helmets and also with where the cyclist positions themselves on >>the road. It will be interesting to get some real, rather than >>anecdotal data on this. > >Now that will be interesting. However, the cyclists will have to >maintain their normal riding style to keep the figures from sewing one >way or another. > > >jim > That's right! Wouldn't want the patterns zig-zaged, or double-stitched! Indiana Mike                       Date: 05 Nov 2005 19:31:53 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 20:28:59 GMT, Mike Rice <jodymike@gte.net > wrote: >On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 00:02:31 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >> >>>There is some government funded research starting in the UK this month >>>at the University of Bath that will be mounting measuring equipment on >>>bikes and measuring how much room motorists give cyclists with and >>>without helmets and also with where the cyclist positions themselves on >>>the road. It will be interesting to get some real, rather than >>>anecdotal data on this. >> >>Now that will be interesting. However, the cyclists will have to >>maintain their normal riding style to keep the figures from sewing one >>way or another. >> >> >>jim >> > >That's right! Wouldn't want the patterns zig-zaged, or >double-stitched! > Whoops, even a spell checker would not have caught that one - skewing. jim                       Date: 05 Nov 2005 20:52:08 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted Mike Rice wrote: > On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 00:02:31 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >>> There is some government funded research starting in the UK this month >>> at the University of Bath that will be mounting measuring equipment on >>> bikes and measuring how much room motorists give cyclists with and >>> without helmets and also with where the cyclist positions themselves on >>> the road. It will be interesting to get some real, rather than >>> anecdotal data on this. >> Now that will be interesting. However, the cyclists will have to >> maintain their normal riding style to keep the figures from sewing one >> way or another. >> >> >> jim >> > > That's right! Wouldn't want the patterns zig-zaged, or > double-stitched! > Jim'll still suggest the results are stitched up if they come out against helmets ;-) -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham                         Date: 05 Nov 2005 19:33:41 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 20:52:08 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > wrote: >Mike Rice wrote: >> On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 00:02:31 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> >>>> There is some government funded research starting in the UK this month >>>> at the University of Bath that will be mounting measuring equipment on >>>> bikes and measuring how much room motorists give cyclists with and >>>> without helmets and also with where the cyclist positions themselves on >>>> the road. It will be interesting to get some real, rather than >>>> anecdotal data on this. >>> Now that will be interesting. However, the cyclists will have to >>> maintain their normal riding style to keep the figures from sewing one >>> way or another. >>> >>> >>> jim >>> >> >> That's right! Wouldn't want the patterns zig-zaged, or >> double-stitched! >> > >Jim'll still suggest the results are stitched up if they come out >against helmets ;-) Not at all. One of the interesting things is, that if you have totally opposing sides on any issue, the truth is invariably somewhere between. More often than not closer to the center than to either end. jim                           Date: 06 Nov 2005 18:37:58 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 19:33:41 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in <j9uqm11bveg9e78gc6fjei77eldvb0t91q@4ax.com >: > One of the interesting things is, that if you have totally >opposing sides on any issue, the truth is invariably somewhere >between. More often than not closer to the center than to either end. Ah, the fallacy of the false middle. I wondered when we'd see that. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken                             Date: 11 Nov 2005 22:49:25 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 18:37:58 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: >On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 19:33:41 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in ><j9uqm11bveg9e78gc6fjei77eldvb0t91q@4ax.com>: > >> One of the interesting things is, that if you have totally >>opposing sides on any issue, the truth is invariably somewhere >>between. More often than not closer to the center than to either end. > >Ah, the fallacy of the false middle. I wondered when we'd see that. > >Guy So everything is shaped like a dumbbell in your universe? everything is polarized without a middle ground? How quaint. jim                               Date: 13 Nov 2005 21:21:06 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:49:25 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in <424bn1h077qq0etgq5ho2o3ik64e1bkdgh@4ax.com >: >>Ah, the fallacy of the false middle. I wondered when we'd see that. >So everything is shaped like a dumbbell in your universe? everything >is polarized without a middle ground? How quaint. False. However, the sceptical position is not the opposite of the helmet zealot position. If you can find me anyone who is lying to his legislature to try and get a law banning bicycle helmet use, then you will have found the person who represents the opposite pole to the compulsionists. My view is that it is for those who propose an intervention to make their case - this idea is not normally considered controversial. Thus far they have failed to do so, there being at least as much evidence (and of a generally better type) contradicting them. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken                                 Date: 14 Nov 2005 00:20:46 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 21:21:06 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: >On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:49:25 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in ><424bn1h077qq0etgq5ho2o3ik64e1bkdgh@4ax.com>: > >>>Ah, the fallacy of the false middle. I wondered when we'd see that. > >>So everything is shaped like a dumbbell in your universe? everything >>is polarized without a middle ground? How quaint. > >False. However, the sceptical position is not the opposite of the >helmet zealot position. If you can find me anyone who is lying to his >legislature to try and get a law banning bicycle helmet use, then you >will have found the person who represents the opposite pole to the >compulsionists. Somehow, in the general case, I think these folks exist and are far more common than we think. In politics, you have the, hopefully, best and, frequently, the worst. > >My view is that it is for those who propose an intervention to make >their case - this idea is not normally considered controversial. Thus >far they have failed to do so, there being at least as much evidence >(and of a generally better type) contradicting them. jim                                   Date: 19 Nov 2005 23:40:11 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:20:46 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in <34ign11ih04vfehtaiv88utpl98gfhkdlv@4ax.com >: >>False. However, the sceptical position is not the opposite of the >>helmet zealot position. If you can find me anyone who is lying to his >>legislature to try and get a law banning bicycle helmet use, then you >>will have found the person who represents the opposite pole to the >>compulsionists. >Somehow, in the general case, I think these folks exist and are far >more common than we think. In politics, you have the, hopefully, best >and, frequently, the worst. Do feel free to give me named examples of people campaigning for laws banning helmet use. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken                                     Date: 25 Nov 2005 14:36:28 From: James Lane Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 23:40:11 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: >On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:20:46 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in ><34ign11ih04vfehtaiv88utpl98gfhkdlv@4ax.com>: > >>>False. However, the sceptical position is not the opposite of the >>>helmet zealot position. If you can find me anyone who is lying to his >>>legislature to try and get a law banning bicycle helmet use, then you >>>will have found the person who represents the opposite pole to the >>>compulsionists. > >>Somehow, in the general case, I think these folks exist and are far >>more common than we think. In politics, you have the, hopefully, best >>and, frequently, the worst. > >Do feel free to give me named examples of people campaigning for laws >banning helmet use. Have to check with those Harley people, I think they tried in various states, but lost. Of course, the antis may not try it because they know they would be soundly thrashed, but instead of at least putting up a legislative fight, they prefer to snipe from the sidelines, chickens that they are. I wonder why, with all that evidence that gives credence to their position, why they are afraid to fight for what they believe. Makes one wonder doesn't it. jim                                       Date: 26 Nov 2005 10:56:15 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:36:28 -0800, James Lane <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com > said in <7a4fo1t276iuu2l7a4roh9ik3de9d44o0o@4ax.com >: >>Do feel free to give me named examples of people campaigning for laws >>banning helmet use. >Have to check with those Harley people, I think they tried in various >states, but lost. Of course, the antis may not try it because they >know they would be soundly thrashed, but instead of at least putting >up a legislative fight, they prefer to snipe from the sidelines, >chickens that they are. No, they were campaigning *against* laws to *compel* helmet use, a completely different situation. And in some cases they succeeded, around half of states currently allow unhelmeted motorcycling. Funnily enough, those also appear to be the states with the lowest motorcyclist casualty rates - which is chicken and which egg is hard to say. You are once again confusing scepticism with opposition. It is reasonable to be sceptical, it is the default position in science generally. It is reasonable to require those proposing an intervention to prove their case. >I wonder why, with all that evidence that gives credence to their >position, why they are afraid to fight for what they believe. Makes >one wonder doesn't it. You seem to be denouncing sceptics on the grounds that they will not go try to force their views on others in the way zealots do. No, even that does not express the full absurdity of your position, since most sceptics are in favour of allowing personal choice. What you are actually doing is denouncing sceptics for failing to accept only one side of the debate! Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken                           Date: 06 Nov 2005 09:39:28 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > > Not at all. One of the interesting things is, that if you have totally > opposing sides on any issue, the truth is invariably somewhere > between. More often than not closer to the center than to either end. > So do you believe that invariably the truth is somewhere between classical elements of air,fire, earth and water and the modern periodic table or that the the earth and sun both orbit a point somewhere between the orbit of Mercury and Venus? Or is "invariably" a "grandiose overstatement"? -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham                             Date: 11 Nov 2005 22:48:25 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 09:39:28 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> Not at all. One of the interesting things is, that if you have totally >> opposing sides on any issue, the truth is invariably somewhere >> between. More often than not closer to the center than to either end. >> > >So do you believe that invariably the truth is somewhere between >classical elements of air,fire, earth and water and the modern periodic >table or that the the earth and sun both orbit a point somewhere between >the orbit of Mercury and Venus? > >Or is "invariably" a "grandiose overstatement"? It is more accurate than you make it out to be. It is sorta like those two statisticians who went duck hunting. The first duck flew by and the first one took a shot and was behind. Another duck passed and the second staistician fired ahead of the duck. Said one to the other, "Well, on average we got him." jim                   Date: 03 Nov 2005 08:17:00 From: Mark McNeill Subject: Re: advisor wanted Response to Tony Raven: > That's an interesting one. I used to wear (and believe in) helmets > until I started reading the research behind them. The thing that I > really noticed when I started riding without one is how much more care > motorists took around me. I can only assume it is because they see me > as a person with a head and a face and not a helmet on a bike. I've noticed this effect, and put it down do some combination of what you said, and a perception on the motorists' part of cyclists' vulnerability. Very occasionally on u.r.c. someone reports a driver telling them "I could have managed to overtake you back there if you'd been wearing a helmet", or some such; and very regularly a new recumbent rider comments on the large amount of room drivers give them, something I tend to put down to recumbents *looking* unsafe. (The usual first question I get asked is "Isn't that terribly dangerous?") So I'd guess that motorists think that riding without a helmet and riding a bent both make you look more vulnerable, and act accordingly. It's possible that this may be one factor behind the overall non-impact of helmet use in KSI stats. -- k, UK "I have found people to be more kind than I expected, and less just."                 Date: 02 Nov 2005 23:05:14 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 03:56:31 GMT, Mike Rice <jodymike@gte.net > wrote: >On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:59:15 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >Jeez, sounds like you're admitting that the reported injuries, the >SERIOUS ones (sic), are not reduced by h*lm*t use. I have not debated that at all, despite pete's professing that I have. >To many riders the very low risk of an unprotected non-serious >accident dosen't justify the percieved discomfort of the device. You know, in all the times I have seen someone buy a bike, I have never seen one that would not buy a bike because they were required to have a helmet. I have seen many buy bikes and helmets though. Anyoje who would be disuaded from riding because they have to wear a helmet is looking for an excuse. >We've all been brainwashed by the h*lm*t keting machine, they are >only designed to protect at low speeds, and have not shown any >demonstrable effect on the rate of recorded head injuries, and both >sides seem to agree the non reported injuries were not serioous ones. And why were they not serious? Could have been the level of the accident or may be due in part or whole to use of a helmet. We won;t know though, because the stats do not report these occurances. >You guys keep repeating this info 'til the cows come home. If you can >come up with any way to add abreath of fresh air to this thread, >please do. > >It's ever so faintly starting to smell of expired equine. Yeah, it is. But see another poster above who does make some critical comments that roughly parallel mine on research studies. There is a vast difference in looking at them and analysing them for what is in them and what is NOT in them. jim               Date: 02 Nov 2005 21:53:47 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > Pete, I've reached the conclusion that you about as dense as the sun's > core. > > Where was the actual data for the study collected? "The study"? Singular? You've simply proven you haven't even attempted to follow up anything you've been pointed at. If you did bother you could have some of your more ridiculous queries easily answered. > So, if you had an accdent and did not have an ambulance call, visit to > the hospital or file a insurace claim, your accident, officially, does > not exist. As such, it was not included in the research because the > rsearch addresses only reported injuries of a SERIOUS nature. Very good. And because the accident wasn't serious enough to worry anyone about, that matters how, exactly? It might matter if the accident would have been serious without a helmet, but wasn't with one... but if that is the case then with increasing helmet wearing rates the accidents of a SERIOUS nature will be seen to fall as helmets prevent them. But as you've been told repeatedly, that doesn't happen. > There is an entire category of injuries was not included in the study. Again, you mean study, singular? Why don't you stop pontificating from a base of pure assumption and go and read some of the work you're so willing to dismiss? It should be easy to prove it's bunk, if you've got a point. But like showing casualty savings from increased helmet wearing, you either won't or can't. Read the research for yourself, and then you'll be in a position to ask intelligent questions, rather than missing the point for the umpteenth time that if a helmet removes a data point from SERIOUS injury listing then that contributes to the rate of SERIOUS injuries going down, but we don't see that. > NON-REPORTED/non-serious injuries. Not an issue if they wouldn't have been serious, contributing to a fall in SERIOUS rates over time if they would have been. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                 Date: 02 Nov 2005 22:58:25 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:53:47 +0000, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >> Pete, I've reached the conclusion that you about as dense as the sun's >> core. >> >> Where was the actual data for the study collected? > >"The study"? Singular? You've simply proven you haven't even >attempted to follow up anything you've been pointed at. If you did >bother you could have some of your more ridiculous queries easily >answered. Grant me a typo, you've made enough of your own. And you have not provided one single bit of information directly concerning what I have been talking about - NON-SERIOUS injuries. >> So, if you had an accdent and did not have an ambulance call, visit to >> the hospital or file a insurace claim, your accident, officially, does >> not exist. As such, it was not included in the research because the >> rsearch addresses only reported injuries of a SERIOUS nature. > >Very good. And because the accident wasn't serious enough to worry >anyone about, that matters how, exactly? Jeez, you are stupid. I've said it to you more than a dozen times. Hve you any functioning grey matter at all? >It might matter if the accident would have been serious without a >helmet, but wasn't with one... but if that is the case then with >increasing helmet wearing rates the accidents of a SERIOUS nature >will be seen to fall as helmets prevent them. But as you've been >told repeatedly, that doesn't happen. Not true because there is no direct link in the data. That is why the researchers are so very careful to talk about SERIOUS injuries and not say anything about non-serious ones. Take a clue from them. If they are not talking about it, it was not included in the study, otherwise they would have reported findings associated with that. >> There is an entire category of injuries was not included in the study. > >Again, you mean study, singular? yada, yada, yada. Are you going to turn into the netnanny over spelling too? >Why don't you stop pontificating from a base of pure assumption and >go and read some of the work you're so willing to dismiss? It >should be easy to prove it's bunk, if you've got a point. But like >showing casualty savings from increased helmet wearing, you either >won't or can't. Read the research for yourself, and then you'll be >in a position to ask intelligent questions, rather than missing the >point for the umpteenth time that if a helmet removes a data point >from SERIOUS injury listing then that contributes to the rate of >SERIOUS injuries going down, but we don't see that. I am not making assumptions as you ASSume I am. The fact that you cannot produce any directly linked data to non-serious injuries is proof in and of itself, because did it exist, I am sure you would have posted those stats. You have not. >> NON-REPORTED/non-serious injuries. > >Not an issue if they wouldn't have been serious, contributing to a >fall in SERIOUS rates over time if they would have been. ??? What is the meaning of this bit of bafflegab? jim           Date: 02 Nov 2005 07:33:50 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:28:57 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> > wrote: > >> Peter Clinch wrote: >>> ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com wrote: >>> >>>> There is another set of factors operating here that all this ignores and >>>> that is most European countries are cyclist friendly. >>> Nobody has told the figures gathered in the US that so they remain >>> oblivious to it. Please cite some that show me some casualty savings >>> for helmet wearing. >>> >> Can I cite the largest survey ever carried out*, of over 8 >> million cases of injury and death to cyclists in the USA over 15 >> years, concluded that there was no evidence that helmets had reduced >> head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, it suggested that helmeted >> riders were more likely to be killed. >> >> * Reducing Bicycle Accidents: A re-evaluation of the impacts of the >> CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Rodgers. Journal of Product >> Liability, Vol 11 pp 307-317, 1988. > > > Hmmm and not a word about th reduction from serious to non-serious, > eh? > How so? It said helmets did not reduce head injury rates and you think that is "not a word"? Curious. I notice also that you do not comment on the suggestion that helmeted riders were more likely to be killed. But that doesn't fit with your world view so best ignore it eh? -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham             Date: 02 Nov 2005 12:49:31 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 07:33:50 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:28:57 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Peter Clinch wrote: >>>> ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> There is another set of factors operating here that all this ignores and >>>>> that is most European countries are cyclist friendly. >>>> Nobody has told the figures gathered in the US that so they remain >>>> oblivious to it. Please cite some that show me some casualty savings >>>> for helmet wearing. >>>> >>> Can I cite the largest survey ever carried out*, of over 8 >>> million cases of injury and death to cyclists in the USA over 15 >>> years, concluded that there was no evidence that helmets had reduced >>> head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, it suggested that helmeted >>> riders were more likely to be killed. >>> >>> * Reducing Bicycle Accidents: A re-evaluation of the impacts of the >>> CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Rodgers. Journal of Product >>> Liability, Vol 11 pp 307-317, 1988. >> >> >> Hmmm and not a word about th reduction from serious to non-serious, >> eh? >> > >How so? It said helmets did not reduce head injury rates and you think >that is "not a word"? Curious. I notice also that you do not comment >on the suggestion that helmeted riders were more likely to be killed. >But that doesn't fit with your world view so best ignore it eh? The information only includes SERIOUS injury data. That information comes from hospitals/insurance data. NON-SERIOUS injury data has not been reported nor included in the study. What part of that escapes you? jim               Date: 02 Nov 2005 21:56:38 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:49:31 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in <va9im15q50hkbssi9civgoi4hogr59eqea@4ax.com >: >The information only includes SERIOUS injury data. That information >comes from hospitals/insurance data. NON-SERIOUS injury data has not >been reported nor included in the study. >What part of that escapes you? See, it's like this. The figures for serious injuries are the ones which Governments collect because they are (a) more reliable than those for minor injuries and (b) of some legitimate public concern. And when you compare rates of serious injuries over time you find that helmets have no influence on them. So serious injuries are not prevented (and for the avoidance of doubt if they were reduced to minor injuries that would still show in these figures, because minor injuries are not counted). Actually the most reliable figures are for fatalities - and here, too, we find that real populations show no improvement from increasing helmet use. Sure, fatality rates have risen in the USA as helmet use rates have risen, but there may be other causes. Some studies do show that injuries are prevented, but they are all of the same type: observational case-control studies. These are the same types of studies which showed beyond doubt that combined hormone replacement therapy reduced coronary heart disease in women. And the subsequent clinical trial showed that actually HRT caused a small but significant /increase/ in risk. Observational case-control studies are only ever a pointer to what might be, because it is inherently impossible to separate the chooser from the choice. But what happens is that people seize on the observational case-control studies because they support pre-existing prejudice, and demand that those who are sceptical of these studies prove their case. When that happens, they say the sceptics must be wrong because their evidence conflicts with the case-control studies. In fact, the standard of proof you demand from Tony and the others is massively higher than the standard of any pro-helmet study of which I am aware. And I have read several hundred of them (quite likely rather more of them than you have, I'd say). You are reversing the burden of proof, uncritically accepting one side of the debate while demanding jurisprudential standards of proof from the other. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken                 Date: 02 Nov 2005 22:51:28 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:56:38 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: >On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:49:31 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in ><va9im15q50hkbssi9civgoi4hogr59eqea@4ax.com>: > >>The information only includes SERIOUS injury data. That information >>comes from hospitals/insurance data. NON-SERIOUS injury data has not >>been reported nor included in the study. >>What part of that escapes you? > >See, it's like this. The figures for serious injuries are the ones >which Governments collect because they are (a) more reliable than >those for minor injuries and (b) of some legitimate public concern. >And when you compare rates of serious injuries over time you find that >helmets have no influence on them. So serious injuries are not >prevented (and for the avoidance of doubt if they were reduced to >minor injuries that would still show in these figures, because minor >injuries are not counted). And just how would they show? They cannot because they are not collected as you have pointed out. >Actually the most reliable figures are for fatalities - and here, too, >we find that real populations show no improvement from increasing >helmet use. Sure, fatality rates have risen in the USA as helmet use >rates have risen, but there may be other causes. And that is another of the points I have made - interveining variables that are not accounted for. >Some studies do show that injuries are prevented, but they are all of >the same type: observational case-control studies. These are the same >types of studies which showed beyond doubt that combined hormone >replacement therapy reduced coronary heart disease in women. And the >subsequent clinical trial showed that actually HRT caused a small but >significant /increase/ in risk. Observational case-control studies >are only ever a pointer to what might be, because it is inherently >impossible to separate the chooser from the choice. I have also pointed out that anecdotal evidence points to areas where further research may be needed. >But what happens is that people seize on the observational >case-control studies because they support pre-existing prejudice, and >demand that those who are sceptical of these studies prove their case. >When that happens, they say the sceptics must be wrong because their >evidence conflicts with the case-control studies. And those on the other side of the issue seize the information that comes closest to their beliefs (regardless of the actual validity of the information) and make categorical statements about it. >In fact, the standard of proof you demand from Tony and the others is >massively higher than the standard of any pro-helmet study of which I >am aware. And I have read several hundred of them (quite likely >rather more of them than you have, I'd say). That many? >You are reversing the burden of proof, uncritically accepting one side >of the debate while demanding jurisprudential standards of proof from >the other. I have not rejected the study as far as it concerns SERIOUS injury. I question its findings being used as a case to apply to ALL injuries, even those that were not under study and doing so without stating a caveat of this overly broad aplplication of the information. That is what Pete and others are doing. Thy are using data about and that apply only to serious injuries to make statements about other injuries for which there is no data. jim                   Date: 03 Nov 2005 17:11:23 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:51:28 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in <tbcjm1lend6hql4n0aot50rk6h2gjlgfmn@4ax.com >: >>See, it's like this. The figures for serious injuries are the ones >>which Governments collect because they are (a) more reliable than >>those for minor injuries and (b) of some legitimate public concern. >>And when you compare rates of serious injuries over time you find that >>helmets have no influence on them. So serious injuries are not >>prevented (and for the avoidance of doubt if they were reduced to >>minor injuries that would still show in these figures, because minor >>injuries are not counted). >And just how would they show? They cannot because they are not >collected as you have pointed out. Given that it has been shown that helmeted cyclists take more risks and are more likely to hit their heads in the first place, that is moot. But the point is, nobody has ever said "wear a helmet, it might save you from a minor graze!". The zealots all claim that a helmet could Save Your Life[tm] or prevent serious injury. This is at odds with the observed facts, and indeed with the standards to which they are tested. >>Actually the most reliable figures are for fatalities - and here, too, >>we find that real populations show no improvement from increasing >>helmet use. Sure, fatality rates have risen in the USA as helmet use >>rates have risen, but there may be other causes. >And that is another of the points I have made - interveining variables >that are not accounted for. Indeed. And they account for most of the effect observed in those studies which support helmet use. What is clear is that increasing helmet use is strongly correlated with reducing numbers cycling, and injury rates reduce more or less with the inverse square of numbers cycling. Given that only 30% of cyclist hospitalizations are for head injury (the same proportion as for pedestrians, by the way), helmet promotion looks like a particularly bad idea! Especially since these days it dominates the "cycle safety" agenda to an extent which is out of all proportion to the merit of helmets. I'd go as far as to say that most people only know two things about bike safety, and they are both wrong. >>Some studies do show that injuries are prevented, but they are all of >>the same type: observational case-control studies. These are the same >>types of studies which showed beyond doubt that combined hormone >>replacement therapy reduced coronary heart disease in women. And the >>subsequent clinical trial showed that actually HRT caused a small but >>significant /increase/ in risk. Observational case-control studies >>are only ever a pointer to what might be, because it is inherently >>impossible to separate the chooser from the choice. >I have also pointed out that anecdotal evidence points to areas where >further research may be needed. We already have a substantial body of evidence from whole populations and time series, including the largest study ever, all of which suggest that helmets are essentially irrelevant. And we have a body of research of a type which is known to be often wrong and inherently prone to bias, which suggests that they work to a quite rekable degree. So what happens? Zealots like you stand there demanding ever more proof from sceptics. Tell me this: have you ever read the leading pro-helmet papers? >>But what happens is that people seize on the observational >>case-control studies because they support pre-existing prejudice, and >>demand that those who are sceptical of these studies prove their case. >>When that happens, they say the sceptics must be wrong because their >>evidence conflicts with the case-control studies. >And those on the other side of the issue seize the information that >comes closest to their beliefs (regardless of the actual validity of >the information) and make categorical statements about it. I think you will find that many of the leading sceptics were once firm believers in helmets, and have changed their views as a result of actually reading the evidence (something I urge you to do). That includes me, and several of the others on the editorial board of www.cyclehelmets.org. It was Tony Raven, if I recall correctly, who pointed me in the direction of the conflicting evidence in the first place, and it wasn't that long ago. I have never seen a sceptic convert to being a True Believer as a result of reading pro-helmet studies. >>In fact, the standard of proof you demand from Tony and the others is >>massively higher than the standard of any pro-helmet study of which I >>am aware. And I have read several hundred of them (quite likely >>rather more of them than you have, I'd say). >That many? Yes. Actually my helmet research library includes around 900 documents at present, but some of these are abstracts and sumies of others. >>You are reversing the burden of proof, uncritically accepting one side >>of the debate while demanding jurisprudential standards of proof from >>the other. >I have not rejected the study as far as it concerns SERIOUS injury. I >question its findings being used as a case to apply to ALL injuries, >even those that were not under study and doing so without stating a >caveat of this overly broad aplplication of the information. Helmets are promoted because they will Save Your Life[tm]. External evidence proves this claim is false. Helmets are promoted because they will prevent serious injury. External evidence proves this claim is false. Now you say wear a helmet because it might prevent minor injury. First, show me some evidence other than from case-control studies (a type of study which I now consider evidentially worthless) that they actually do prevent these minor injuries. Second, where is the evidence that they prevent minor injuries better than any other hat? You could fall back on anecdote, but since the wearing of helmets seems to increase the incidence of head strikes this looks unwise. >That is what Pete and others are doing. Thy are using data about and >that apply only to serious injuries to make statements about other >injuries for which there is no data. No, what's happening is that you are moving the goalposts and reversing the burden of proof. Where is *your* proof, as the one promoting the intervention, that it has any measurable effect? Cite studies. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken                     Date: 05 Nov 2005 00:05:18 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:11:23 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: >On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:51:28 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in ><tbcjm1lend6hql4n0aot50rk6h2gjlgfmn@4ax.com>: > >>>See, it's like this. The figures for serious injuries are the ones >>>which Governments collect because they are (a) more reliable than >>>those for minor injuries and (b) of some legitimate public concern. >>>And when you compare rates of serious injuries over time you find that >>>helmets have no influence on them. So serious injuries are not >>>prevented (and for the avoidance of doubt if they were reduced to >>>minor injuries that would still show in these figures, because minor >>>injuries are not counted). > >>And just how would they show? They cannot because they are not >>collected as you have pointed out. > >Given that it has been shown that helmeted cyclists take more risks >and are more likely to hit their heads in the first place, that is >moot. But the point is, nobody has ever said "wear a helmet, it might >save you from a minor graze!". The zealots all claim that a helmet >could Save Your Life[tm] or prevent serious injury. This is at odds >with the observed facts, and indeed with the standards to which they >are tested. And the zealots on the other side do not do the same? What a crock of bs. Both sets of zealots are equally guilty. >>>Actually the most reliable figures are for fatalities - and here, too, >>>we find that real populations show no improvement from increasing >>>helmet use. Sure, fatality rates have risen in the USA as helmet use >>>rates have risen, but there may be other causes. > >>And that is another of the points I have made - interveining variables >>that are not accounted for. > >Indeed. And they account for most of the effect observed in those >studies which support helmet use. What is clear is that increasing >helmet use is strongly correlated with reducing numbers cycling, and >injury rates reduce more or less with the inverse square of numbers >cycling. Given that only 30% of cyclist hospitalizations are for head >injury (the same proportion as for pedestrians, by the way), helmet >promotion looks like a particularly bad idea! Especially since these >days it dominates the "cycle safety" agenda to an extent which is out >of all proportion to the merit of helmets. I'd go as far as to say >that most people only know two things about bike safety, and they are >both wrong. Right, another pile of BS. The anti-side is just as capable of ignoring interveining varialbes and of using them as the opposed group is. Noted that you lack any balance on tis and use it to slam that which does not agree with oyu while ignoring it where it supports you. Goes directly to a point I made, people with positions see everything that supports them and ignores or bafflegabs away anything that goes against their position - just as you have done. >>>Some studies do show that injuries are prevented, but they are all of >>>the same type: observational case-control studies. These are the same >>>types of studies which showed beyond doubt that combined hormone >>>replacement therapy reduced coronary heart disease in women. And the >>>subsequent clinical trial showed that actually HRT caused a small but >>>significant /increase/ in risk. Observational case-control studies >>>are only ever a pointer to what might be, because it is inherently >>>impossible to separate the chooser from the choice. > >>I have also pointed out that anecdotal evidence points to areas where >>further research may be needed. > >We already have a substantial body of evidence from whole populations >and time series, including the largest study ever, all of which >suggest that helmets are essentially irrelevant. And we have a body >of research of a type which is known to be often wrong and inherently >prone to bias, which suggests that they work to a quite rekable >degree. So what happens? Zealots like you stand there demanding ever >more proof from sceptics. Tell me this: have you ever read the leading >pro-helmet papers? I note that you are incapable of accepting that you are a zealot yourself. Interesting - your blindness and delusion that you are not. >>>But what happens is that people seize on the observational >>>case-control studies because they support pre-existing prejudice, and >>>demand that those who are sceptical of these studies prove their case. >>>When that happens, they say the sceptics must be wrong because their >>>evidence conflicts with the case-control studies. > >>And those on the other side of the issue seize the information that >>comes closest to their beliefs (regardless of the actual validity of >>the information) and make categorical statements about it. > >I think you will find that many of the leading sceptics were once firm >believers in helmets, and have changed their views as a result of >actually reading the evidence (something I urge you to do). That >includes me, and several of the others on the editorial board of >www.cyclehelmets.org. It was Tony Raven, if I recall correctly, who >pointed me in the direction of the conflicting evidence in the first >place, and it wasn't that long ago. > >I have never seen a sceptic convert to being a True Believer as a >result of reading pro-helmet studies. > >>>In fact, the standard of proof you demand from Tony and the others is >>>massively higher than the standard of any pro-helmet study of which I >>>am aware. And I have read several hundred of them (quite likely >>>rather more of them than you have, I'd say). > >>That many? > >Yes. Actually my helmet research library includes around 900 >documents at present, but some of these are abstracts and sumies of >others. IU am impressed, but given the characteristics you have displayed, you would probably deny anything that definitevely happened right in front of your own nose and call it mere chance. >>>You are reversing the burden of proof, uncritically accepting one side >>>of the debate while demanding jurisprudential standards of proof from >>>the other. > >>I have not rejected the study as far as it concerns SERIOUS injury. I >>question its findings being used as a case to apply to ALL injuries, >>even those that were not under study and doing so without stating a >>caveat of this overly broad aplplication of the information. > >Helmets are promoted because they will Save Your Life[tm]. External >evidence proves this claim is false. Other evidence proves they do. You denigrate them, why should I not be afforded the same coutesy? Have you double standards? As far as the rest of your questions, they are moot because you have shown you are incapable of accepting any evidence that runs contrarty to your position. Both sides have to furbnish proof. You automatically reject anything that is contrary to your position, Let me reciprocate by rejecting all your evidence. Here is the bottom line, professional whatever you are, as long as helmets remain in their current configuration and level of safety, there will be no major changes in percentages of serious injuries, injures that have been mitigated to less than serious by helmet use, injuries that are so low that helmet or not would be irreloevant. The only way to know if they work is to make a safer helmet. If it becomes accepted (I don't like mandated use), serious injury levels SHOULD decrease because of the increased safety. If it does not, then they don't work. If the injuries ride, they are detrimental. If they go down, helmets work. The problem is the current state-of-the-art helmet's low standard of safety provision. There is another fly in the ointment, though, and that is injury "movement." By this I refer to a possible ridse in neck injuries because of protecting the head better and transmitting the injury further down the body. This is aki to what happened with the rising safety of ski boots. Way back, most of the injururies were ankle and lower leg. With safer boots, ankle injuries fell, leg and knee injuries increased (at least according to the doctors I spoke with at various Colorado and Utah ski resorts. Here is another thing that these post 200 studies have ignored and that is the rise in BMX riding and illegal BMX tracks carved out ijn local canyons and the injuries that come from them. I have a hunch, that were theis extremely dangerous (and other X-games forms of cycling) separated out, teh numbers would be very, very different. But, none of the studies do that. >Helmets are promoted because they will prevent serious injury. >External evidence proves this claim is false. > >Now you say wear a helmet because it might prevent minor injury. >First, show me some evidence other than from case-control studies (a >type of study which I now consider evidentially worthless) that they >actually do prevent these minor injuries. Second, where is the >evidence that they prevent minor injuries better than any other hat? > >You could fall back on anecdote, but since the wearing of helmets >seems to increase the incidence of head strikes this looks unwise. > >>That is what Pete and others are doing. Thy are using data about and >>that apply only to serious injuries to make statements about other >>injuries for which there is no data. > >No, what's happening is that you are moving the goalposts and >reversing the burden of proof. Where is *your* proof, as the one >promoting the intervention, that it has any measurable effect? Cite >studies. Burder of proof exists for both parties. You simply reject anything that runs counter to your position, so why bother? Pete is doing exactly what I have said. Nice try to make it otherwise, but I think you missed the boat. jim                       Date: 05 Nov 2005 14:26:21 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 00:05:18 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in <9hnom1h42jl4bgr5nqe7b2d20dos6v5dg4@4ax.com >: >>Given that it has been shown that helmeted cyclists take more risks >>and are more likely to hit their heads in the first place, that is >>moot. But the point is, nobody has ever said "wear a helmet, it might >>save you from a minor graze!". The zealots all claim that a helmet >>could Save Your Life[tm] or prevent serious injury. This is at odds >>with the observed facts, and indeed with the standards to which they >>are tested. >And the zealots on the other side do not do the same? What a crock of >bs. Both sets of zealots are equally guilty. As far as I know there are very few anti-helmet zealots. I know maybe two or three people who are actively anti-helmet. I suppose you could describe Tony and me as zealously sceptical, in that we require that those proposing an intervention demonstrate a credible evidential basis for it. >>What is clear is that increasing >>helmet use is strongly correlated with reducing numbers cycling, and >>injury rates reduce more or less with the inverse square of numbers >>cycling. Given that only 30% of cyclist hospitalizations are for head >>injury (the same proportion as for pedestrians, by the way), helmet >>promotion looks like a particularly bad idea! Especially since these >>days it dominates the "cycle safety" agenda to an extent which is out >>of all proportion to the merit of helmets. I'd go as far as to say >>that most people only know two things about bike safety, and they are >>both wrong. >Right, another pile of BS. The anti-side is just as capable of >ignoring interveining varialbes and of using them as the opposed group >is. Noted that you lack any balance on tis and use it to slam that >which does not agree with oyu while ignoring it where it supports you. Sorry? What is BS? I can cite evidence for everything I said. But you are missing the point: the default is to be sceptical. You have reversed that, a fault common to many helmet enthusiasts when faced with conflicting evidence. What evidential basis do you have for asserting that helmets have any measurable effect? >Goes directly to a point I made, people with positions see everything >that supports them and ignores or bafflegabs away anything that goes >against their position - just as you have done. Again, you are missing the point. The whole helmet movement is an example of precisely the problem you describe. Go and read the most widely-cited helmet paper in the world, and the other work published by the same authors in the two years before and after, if you don't believe me. See if you can account for Frederick P Rivara's mysterious use of a high assumed wearing rate to "prove" helmets work and a vastly lower rate in the *same* population at the *same* time to "prove" the need for compulsion. You don't seem to be familiar with the evidence which underpins your position! >>We already have a substantial body of evidence from whole populations >>and time series, including the largest study ever, all of which >>suggest that helmets are essentially irrelevant. And we have a body >>of research of a type which is known to be often wrong and inherently >>prone to bias, which suggests that they work to a quite rekable >>degree. So what happens? Zealots like you stand there demanding ever >>more proof from sceptics. Tell me this: have you ever read the leading >>pro-helmet papers? >I note that you are incapable of accepting that you are a zealot >yourself. Interesting - your blindness and delusion that you are not. I have no problem admitting that I am zealous for an evidence-based approach, thanks. I also have no problem referencing what I say. I have read and have copies of most of the major studies. But you are still reversing the burden of proof. You clearly have no conception of how shoddy the evidence is which underpins your position. >>Actually my helmet research library includes around 900 >>documents at present, but some of these are abstracts and sumies of >>others. >IU am impressed, but given the characteristics you have displayed, you >would probably deny anything that definitevely happened right in front >of your own nose and call it mere chance. Pointless evasion. I have read the research and *radically changed my position* as a result. Which should tell you something. I have also been involved in many discussions with True Believers, including demonstrating to one campaigning body that the 85%/88% figure is entirely indefensible. They continue to use it. Which should also tell you something. >>Helmets are promoted because they will Save Your Life[tm]. External >>evidence proves this claim is false. >Other evidence proves they do. You denigrate them, why should I not be >afforded the same coutesy? Have you double standards? Which evidence in particular proves that a helmet could save your life? Cite. >As far as the rest of your questions, they are moot because you have >shown you are incapable of accepting any evidence that runs contrarty >to your position. That statement is self-evidently false, since my position has reversed in response to the evidence. >Both sides have to furbnish proof. You automatically reject anything >that is contrary to your position, Let me reciprocate by rejecting all >your evidence. False. Actually I have come to reject much of what I previously accepted, based on a far better understanding of it, and on a close examination of a lot of conflicting evidence. You are clearly unfamiliar with the research, I am not and neither is Tony. >Here is the bottom line, professional whatever you are, as long as >helmets remain in their current configuration and level of safety, >there will be no major changes in percentages of serious injuries, >injures that have been mitigated to less than serious by helmet use, >injuries that are so low that helmet or not would be irreloevant. This much is true: serious head injuries are rare, and helmets are not in any case designed to prevent them. Nobody seriously disputes that they prevent many trivial injuries. But laws and promotion campaigns are never founded on prevention of trivial injuries,are they? >The only way to know if they work is to make a safer helmet. If it >becomes accepted (I don't like mandated use), serious injury levels >SHOULD decrease because of the increased safety. If it does not, then >they don't work. If the injuries ride, they are detrimental. If they >go down, helmets work. Actually what has happened over time is that helmets have got less protective. but what you say is false. Where helmet wearing rates have increased sharply over time, that will provide data on efficacy. It's just that it fails to support the contention that helmets do anything very much. >>No, what's happening is that you are moving the goalposts and >>reversing the burden of proof. Where is *your* proof, as the one >>promoting the intervention, that it has any measurable effect? Cite >>studies. >Burder of proof exists for both parties. You simply reject anything >that runs counter to your position, so why bother? Pete is doing >exactly what I have said. Nice try to make it otherwise, but I think >you missed the boat. Me? What have you advanced that is actually evidential? All you have done is to make unsubstantiated assertions. If you want to cite the research which underpins your position, you'll find I am more than happy to deal with evidence. That's how I converted from a helmet enthusiast to a sceptic in the first place. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken                         Date: 05 Nov 2005 20:05:33 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 14:26:21 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: >On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 00:05:18 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in ><9hnom1h42jl4bgr5nqe7b2d20dos6v5dg4@4ax.com>: > >>>Given that it has been shown that helmeted cyclists take more risks >>>and are more likely to hit their heads in the first place, that is >>>moot. But the point is, nobody has ever said "wear a helmet, it might >>>save you from a minor graze!". The zealots all claim that a helmet >>>could Save Your Life[tm] or prevent serious injury. This is at odds >>>with the observed facts, and indeed with the standards to which they >>>are tested. > >>And the zealots on the other side do not do the same? What a crock of >>bs. Both sets of zealots are equally guilty. > >As far as I know there are very few anti-helmet zealots. I know maybe >two or three people who are actively anti-helmet. I suppose you could >describe Tony and me as zealously sceptical, in that we require that >those proposing an intervention demonstrate a credible evidential >basis for it. A zealot is a zealot is a. . . There are enough on either side to make everyone in the middle. Nice polite way to obfuscate your position. Unless I have missed it, you have posted 100% against helmets. That is what you are. >>>What is clear is that increasing >>>helmet use is strongly correlated with reducing numbers cycling, and >>>injury rates reduce more or less with the inverse square of numbers >>>cycling. Given that only 30% of cyclist hospitalizations are for head >>>injury (the same proportion as for pedestrians, by the way), helmet >>>promotion looks like a particularly bad idea! Especially since these >>>days it dominates the "cycle safety" agenda to an extent which is out >>>of all proportion to the merit of helmets. I'd go as far as to say >>>that most people only know two things about bike safety, and they are >>>both wrong. > >>Right, another pile of BS. The anti-side is just as capable of >>ignoring interveining varialbes and of using them as the opposed group >>is. Noted that you lack any balance on tis and use it to slam that >>which does not agree with oyu while ignoring it where it supports you. > >Sorry? What is BS? I can cite evidence for everything I said. But >you are missing the point: the default is to be sceptical. You have >reversed that, a fault common to many helmet enthusiasts when faced >with conflicting evidence. What evidential basis do you have for >asserting that helmets have any measurable effect? And are you as equally skeptical of those saying helmets do not work? Your posting thus far indicate you are not. You accept them carte blanc. >>Goes directly to a point I made, people with positions see everything >>that supports them and ignores or bafflegabs away anything that goes >>against their position - just as you have done. > >Again, you are missing the point. The whole helmet movement is an >example of precisely the problem you describe. Go and read the most >widely-cited helmet paper in the world, and the other work published >by the same authors in the two years before and after, if you don't >believe me. See if you can account for Frederick P Rivara's >mysterious use of a high assumed wearing rate to "prove" helmets work >and a vastly lower rate in the *same* population at the *same* time to >"prove" the need for compulsion. I made the point. You are a perfect example of it. You have citred all anti-helmet information, no pro-helmet information as far as I remember. Nice that you point ONLY at the pro-sdie while denigrating their behavior that is equally found in the antis. >You don't seem to be familiar with the evidence which underpins your >position! > >>>We already have a substantial body of evidence from whole populations >>>and time series, including the largest study ever, all of which >>>suggest that helmets are essentially irrelevant. And we have a body >>>of research of a type which is known to be often wrong and inherently >>>prone to bias, which suggests that they work to a quite rekable >>>degree. So what happens? Zealots like you stand there demanding ever >>>more proof from sceptics. Tell me this: have you ever read the leading >>>pro-helmet papers? > >>I note that you are incapable of accepting that you are a zealot >>yourself. Interesting - your blindness and delusion that you are not. > >I have no problem admitting that I am zealous for an evidence-based >approach, thanks. I also have no problem referencing what I say. I >have read and have copies of most of the major studies. You are an anti-helmet zealot. 100% of what you have posted is anti-helmet. You say you are skeptical, but that is a lie. You are 100% dyed in the wool anti-helmet in your rhetorci. >But you are still reversing the burden of proof. You clearly have no >conception of how shoddy the evidence is which underpins your >position. You would not accepot any evidence that runs counter to your position. Your posting and dismissals have proven that. >>>Actually my helmet research library includes around 900 >>>documents at present, but some of these are abstracts and sumies of >>>others. > >>IU am impressed, but given the characteristics you have displayed, you >>would probably deny anything that definitevely happened right in front >>of your own nose and call it mere chance. > >Pointless evasion. I have read the research and *radically changed my >position* as a result. Which should tell you something. I have also >been involved in many discussions with True Believers, including >demonstrating to one campaigning body that the 85%/88% figure is >entirely indefensible. They continue to use it. Which should also >tell you something. True fact, not pointless evasion. Can you prove that previous position of yours with any publishing anywhere in the public where you have supported helmets? Otherwise, your claim cannot be substantiated. >>>Helmets are promoted because they will Save Your Life[tm]. External >>>evidence proves this claim is false. > >>Other evidence proves they do. You denigrate them, why should I not be >>afforded the same coutesy? Have you double standards? > >Which evidence in particular proves that a helmet could save your >life? Cite. I've not made any claims about saving lives. You have seen in the other posts I have made the pro-studies and you have immediately denigrated them. You are anti-helmet in your postings, period. You have to lie about that by saying "skeptical." BS, you are anti-helmet. >>As far as the rest of your questions, they are moot because you have >>shown you are incapable of accepting any evidence that runs contrarty >>to your position. > >That statement is self-evidently false, since my position has reversed >in response to the evidence. Prove that previous position. Otherwise your statement is a lie and BS of which you have amply proven you do. >>Both sides have to furbnish proof. You automatically reject anything >>that is contrary to your position, Let me reciprocate by rejecting all >>your evidence. > >False. Actually I have come to reject much of what I previously >accepted, based on a far better understanding of it, and on a close >examination of a lot of conflicting evidence. You are clearly >unfamiliar with the research, I am not and neither is Tony. Prove that previous position. >>Here is the bottom line, professional whatever you are, as long as >>helmets remain in their current configuration and level of safety, >>there will be no major changes in percentages of serious injuries, >>injures that have been mitigated to less than serious by helmet use, >>injuries that are so low that helmet or not would be irreloevant. > >This much is true: serious head injuries are rare, and helmets are not >in any case designed to prevent them. Nobody seriously disputes that >they prevent many trivial injuries. But laws and promotion campaigns >are never founded on prevention of trivial injuries,are they? > >>The only way to know if they work is to make a safer helmet. If it >>becomes accepted (I don't like mandated use), serious injury levels >>SHOULD decrease because of the increased safety. If it does not, then >>they don't work. If the injuries ride, they are detrimental. If they >>go down, helmets work. > >Actually what has happened over time is that helmets have got less >protective. but what you say is false. Where helmet wearing rates >have increased sharply over time, that will provide data on efficacy. >It's just that it fails to support the contention that helmets do >anything very much. Prove that they have become less safe. I have know of two or three standards - Snell, ANSI and something else I cannot recall. Umnless yo9u can prove they have lessed the requirements, I'll not take your word for this. >>>No, what's happening is that you are moving the goalposts and >>>reversing the burden of proof. Where is *your* proof, as the one >>>promoting the intervention, that it has any measurable effect? Cite >>>studies. > >>Burder of proof exists for both parties. You simply reject anything >>that runs counter to your position, so why bother? Pete is doing >>exactly what I have said. Nice try to make it otherwise, but I think >>you missed the boat. > >Me? What have you advanced that is actually evidential? All you have >done is to make unsubstantiated assertions. If you want to cite the >research which underpins your position, you'll find I am more than >happy to deal with evidence. That's how I converted from a helmet >enthusiast to a sceptic in the first place. Right. More BS, Guy. I am questioning the evidence, how it was collected, how it is reported. You do not question any that is anti-helmet. 'Nuff said, you are anti-helmet and have been uless you can prove optherwise. jim                           Date: 06 Nov 2005 18:37:13 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 20:05:33 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in <46vqm11v8ruenrlglhfe06rn405iklb6ur@4ax.com >: >>As far as I know there are very few anti-helmet zealots. I know maybe >>two or three people who are actively anti-helmet. I suppose you could >>describe Tony and me as zealously sceptical, in that we require that >>those proposing an intervention demonstrate a credible evidential >>basis for it. >A zealot is a zealot is a. . . person who pushes something without any evidential basis. Since I am pushing nothing but scepticism, and since I can cite evidence for every claim I make, and since I can show that my position has already changed once in response to the evidence, and since you are reversing the burden of proof, and since you have failed to demonstrate even basic knowledge of the evidence, I wonder which of us is more likely to be the zealot in this case? >There are enough on either side to make >everyone in the middle. The middle is scepticism. At one extreme are those advocating mandatory use of helmets and at the other are those advocating the banning of helmets (there must be at least one of them somewhere). But the middle is scepticism, for sure. >Nice polite way to obfuscate your position. >Unless I have missed it, you have posted 100% against helmets. That is >what you are. No, I have not posted against helmets. I have posted against ill-informed zealotry. It is not very hard to find pictures of me and my kids wearing them - the link in my sig includes several. You are falling into the classic trap of characterising anybody who is not 100% pro helmet as benign anti-helmet. It's a fallacious rhetorical device common among helmet zealots, but you seem to want to dissociate yourself from that group. >>Sorry? What is BS? I can cite evidence for everything I said. But >>you are missing the point: the default is to be sceptical. You have >>reversed that, a fault common to many helmet enthusiasts when faced >>with conflicting evidence. What evidential basis do you have for >>asserting that helmets have any measurable effect? >And are you as equally skeptical of those saying helmets do not work? >Your posting thus far indicate you are not. You accept them carte >blanc. False. But let us assume for a moment that I am: if I disbelieve both the evidence for and the evidence against helmets, where does that leave me? The simple answer is: where I was before they were invented, riding my bike bareheaded. You seem to want me to discount the sceptical research while accepting a course of action founded on /far/ weaker evidence. I know it's far weaker because I have taken the trouble to obtain and read it - something you clearly have not done. So once again: what is your evidential basis for claiming that helmets have any measurable effect? Cite. >I made the point. You are a perfect example of it. You have citred all >anti-helmet information, no pro-helmet information as far as I >remember. Nice that you point ONLY at the pro-sdie while denigrating >their behavior that is equally found in the antis. I have cited evidence to back my position as a sceptic on the assumption that you are already familiar with the evidence backing your position as a helmet advocate. Are you saying your position is based on prejudice rather than knowledge of the evidence? That seems to be a tenuous basis for such vigorously argumentative advocacy. >>I have no problem admitting that I am zealous for an evidence-based >>approach, thanks. I also have no problem referencing what I say. I >>have read and have copies of most of the major studies. >You are an anti-helmet zealot. 100% of what you have posted is >anti-helmet. You say you are skeptical, but that is a lie. You are >100% dyed in the wool anti-helmet in your rhetorci. False. As I say, check the link in my .sig. But once again you have evaded the point: I have cited evidence to support my position, which is one of scepticism. You appear to think that the default should be to act as if the pro-helmet research is correct. That is wrong. You also appear to be unfamiliar with the evidence which underlies your assumptions. >You would not accepot any evidence that runs counter to your position. >Your posting and dismissals have proven that. This is demonstrably false, since I have already accepted research conflicting with my preconceptions to the extent of changing from strongly pro helmet to sceptical, starting within a discussion on a public forum. This process has required very considerable research over a couple of years. Research I'm prepared to cite as needed, as you have seen. I note that you do not cite sources to back your position, you merely attack the sources cited by others. Why is that? >>Pointless evasion. I have read the research and *radically changed my >>position* as a result. Which should tell you something. I have also >>been involved in many discussions with True Believers, including >>demonstrating to one campaigning body that the 85%/88% figure is >>entirely indefensible. They continue to use it. Which should also >>tell you something. >True fact, not pointless evasion. Can you prove that previous position >of yours with any publishing anywhere in the public where you have >supported helmets? Otherwise, your claim cannot be substantiated. It's a matter of public record and I'd post the link if the Google groups archive wasn't constitutionally incapable of an accurate date-based sort. Check out the http://www.h2g2.com and the history of user 54363 (me) for some supporting evidence. Tony will also back me up, as he was in that original thread, or you can ask at the group in which it happened, uk.rec.cycling. Once again, though, you are asking me to prove my case. That is a reversal. The default is to require those who propose an intervention to prove their case. Where is /your/ evidence? >>>>Helmets are promoted because they will Save Your Life[tm]. External >>>>evidence proves this claim is false. >>>Other evidence proves they do. You denigrate them, why should I not be >>>afforded the same coutesy? Have you double standards? >>Which evidence in particular proves that a helmet could save your >>life? Cite. >I've not made any claims about saving lives. See the trail above. In response to "Helmets are promoted because they will Save Your Life[tm]. External evidence proves this claim is false.", you said "Other evidence proves they do." So, cite it, please. >You have seen in the >other posts I have made the pro-studies and you have immediately >denigrated them. You are anti-helmet in your postings, period. You >have to lie about that by saying "skeptical." BS, you are anti-helmet. No, what happened is that after an extended period claiming that helmets do good you finally went and looked at a sceptical site, found links to a couple of studies which that site debunks in various ways, and acted as if that were clinching proof. This is wrong for two reasons: First, www.cyclehelmets.org exists because people who were initially quite happy to accept the benefits of helmets were challenged to prove the case, and found it not only weak but strongly contradicted. The studies you cited include the most widely cited and the most notoriously bogus claims for efficacy. Not only have I read and understood that study, which you clearly have not, but I also mentioned before you ever did, suggesting you go away and read it. Second: you are still reversing the burden of proof. You are falsely accusing people of denigrating helmets when all we have said is that it is absurd to suggest they they provide protection beyond the standards to which they are tested (which, incidentally, Tony and I have also read and you have not). Remember, you are the one proposing an intervention, you are the one who must prove their case. >>>As far as the rest of your questions, they are moot because you have >>>shown you are incapable of accepting any evidence that runs contrarty >>>to your position. >>That statement is self-evidently false, since my position has reversed >>in response to the evidence. >Prove that previous position. Otherwise your statement is a lie and BS >of which you have amply proven you do. Interesting how when you are challenged to provide evidence you turn it round and start shouting insults at those who *clearly* know the subject in far more detail than you do. Where are these supposed lies? Give posting and line numbers. As to the evidence, see above. It is easily, if not trivially thanks to Google's limitations, verifiable. >>False. Actually I have come to reject much of what I previously >>accepted, based on a far better understanding of it, and on a close >>examination of a lot of conflicting evidence. You are clearly >>unfamiliar with the research, I am not and neither is Tony. >Prove that previous position. Unnecessary, since my current position is the default in any scientific debate, namely scepticism. I notice that thus far you have made absolutely no effort whatsoever to prove your case other than denigrating those who contradict you, however much evidence they might offer. >>Actually what has happened over time is that helmets have got less >>protective. but what you say is false. Where helmet wearing rates >>have increased sharply over time, that will provide data on efficacy. >>It's just that it fails to support the contention that helmets do >>anything very much. >Prove that they have become less safe. "Cycle helmets sold in the UK today generally offer a lower level of protection than those sold in the early 1990s. This is due in the main to the introduction of the European EN1078 standard, which is weaker than the Snell standards then used" - Brian Walker, Managing Director, Head Protection Evaluations (http://hpe.site-street.net/). Read this: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1081.html written by Brian Walker. Oh, and EN 1078 is about the same as CPSC, but CPSC is entirely self-certified by the manufacturers, while EN 1078 requires external validation. >I have know of two or three >standards - Snell, ANSI and something else I cannot recall. Umnless >yo9u can prove they have lessed the requirements, I'll not take your >word for this. I am begriming to wonder if you know anything at all about the subject you are spending so much time arguing about. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/Helmets_Timeline gives some of the helmet standards and their introduction dates. In case you were wondering, yes I do have copies of many of them. I'm guessing you don't... >>Me? What have you advanced that is actually evidential? All you have >>done is to make unsubstantiated assertions. If you want to cite the >>research which underpins your position, you'll find I am more than >>happy to deal with evidence. That's how I converted from a helmet >>enthusiast to a sceptic in the first place. >Right. More BS, Guy. I am questioning the evidence, how it was >collected, how it is reported. You do not question any that is >anti-helmet. 'Nuff said, you are anti-helmet and have been uless you >can prove optherwise. No, you are questioning /half/ the evidence, based on a tacit acceptance of the other half. That is very different. You are also denouncing people as "anti helmet" simply because they do not accept without question your strongly pro-helmet stance. Again, a clear reversal of burden of proof. And a number of other fallacies along the way. Remember, you have yet to show any understanding whatsoever of the evidence which underlies the position you have spent some hours arguing, whereas Tony and I can quote chapter and verse. So, go back and read the 1989 Seattle study, compare it with the contemporaneous study co-authored by Rivara and see how you account for the different helmet usage rates in the two. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken                             Date: 11 Nov 2005 16:27:44 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 18:37:13 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: >On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 20:05:33 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in ><46vqm11v8ruenrlglhfe06rn405iklb6ur@4ax.com>: > >>>As far as I know there are very few anti-helmet zealots. I know maybe >>>two or three people who are actively anti-helmet. I suppose you could >>>describe Tony and me as zealously sceptical, in that we require that >>>those proposing an intervention demonstrate a credible evidential >>>basis for it. > >>A zealot is a zealot is a. . . > >person who pushes something without any evidential basis. Since I am >pushing nothing but scepticism, and since I can cite evidence for >every claim I make, and since I can show that my position has already >changed once in response to the evidence, and since you are reversing >the burden of proof, and since you have failed to demonstrate even >basic knowledge of the evidence, I wonder which of us is more likely >to be the zealot in this case? > >>There are enough on either side to make >>everyone in the middle. > >The middle is scepticism. At one extreme are those advocating >mandatory use of helmets and at the other are those advocating the >banning of helmets (there must be at least one of them somewhere). But >the middle is scepticism, for sure. > >>Nice polite way to obfuscate your position. >>Unless I have missed it, you have posted 100% against helmets. That is >>what you are. > >No, I have not posted against helmets. I have posted against >ill-informed zealotry. It is not very hard to find pictures of me and >my kids wearing them - the link in my sig includes several. > >You are falling into the classic trap of characterising anybody who is >not 100% pro helmet as benign anti-helmet. It's a fallacious >rhetorical device common among helmet zealots, but you seem to want to >dissociate yourself from that group. > >>>Sorry? What is BS? I can cite evidence for everything I said. But >>>you are missing the point: the default is to be sceptical. You have >>>reversed that, a fault common to many helmet enthusiasts when faced >>>with conflicting evidence. What evidential basis do you have for >>>asserting that helmets have any measurable effect? > >>And are you as equally skeptical of those saying helmets do not work? >>Your posting thus far indicate you are not. You accept them carte >>blanc. > >False. But let us assume for a moment that I am: if I disbelieve both >the evidence for and the evidence against helmets, where does that >leave me? The simple answer is: where I was before they were >invented, riding my bike bareheaded. You seem to want me to discount >the sceptical research while accepting a course of action founded on >/far/ weaker evidence. I know it's far weaker because I have taken >the trouble to obtain and read it - something you clearly have not >done. > >So once again: what is your evidential basis for claiming that helmets >have any measurable effect? Cite. > >>I made the point. You are a perfect example of it. You have citred all >>anti-helmet information, no pro-helmet information as far as I >>remember. Nice that you point ONLY at the pro-sdie while denigrating >>their behavior that is equally found in the antis. > >I have cited evidence to back my position as a sceptic on the >assumption that you are already familiar with the evidence backing >your position as a helmet advocate. Are you saying your position is >based on prejudice rather than knowledge of the evidence? That seems >to be a tenuous basis for such vigorously argumentative advocacy. > >>>I have no problem admitting that I am zealous for an evidence-based >>>approach, thanks. I also have no problem referencing what I say. I >>>have read and have copies of most of the major studies. > >>You are an anti-helmet zealot. 100% of what you have posted is >>anti-helmet. You say you are skeptical, but that is a lie. You are >>100% dyed in the wool anti-helmet in your rhetorci. > >False. As I say, check the link in my .sig. But once again you have >evaded the point: I have cited evidence to support my position, which >is one of scepticism. You appear to think that the default should be >to act as if the pro-helmet research is correct. That is wrong. You >also appear to be unfamiliar with the evidence which underlies your >assumptions. > >>You would not accepot any evidence that runs counter to your position. >>Your posting and dismissals have proven that. > >This is demonstrably false, since I have already accepted research >conflicting with my preconceptions to the extent of changing from >strongly pro helmet to sceptical, starting within a discussion on a >public forum. > >This process has required very considerable research over a couple of >years. Research I'm prepared to cite as needed, as you have seen. I >note that you do not cite sources to back your position, you merely >attack the sources cited by others. Why is that? > >>>Pointless evasion. I have read the research and *radically changed my >>>position* as a result. Which should tell you something. I have also >>>been involved in many discussions with True Believers, including >>>demonstrating to one campaigning body that the 85%/88% figure is >>>entirely indefensible. They continue to use it. Which should also >>>tell you something. > >>True fact, not pointless evasion. Can you prove that previous position >>of yours with any publishing anywhere in the public where you have >>supported helmets? Otherwise, your claim cannot be substantiated. > >It's a matter of public record and I'd post the link if the Google >groups archive wasn't constitutionally incapable of an accurate >date-based sort. Check out the http://www.h2g2.com and the history of >user 54363 (me) for some supporting evidence. Tony will also back me >up, as he was in that original thread, or you can ask at the group in >which it happened, uk.rec.cycling. > >Once again, though, you are asking me to prove my case. That is a >reversal. The default is to require those who propose an intervention >to prove their case. Where is /your/ evidence? > >>>>>Helmets are promoted because they will Save Your Life[tm]. External >>>>>evidence proves this claim is false. >>>>Other evidence proves they do. You denigrate them, why should I not be >>>>afforded the same coutesy? Have you double standards? >>>Which evidence in particular proves that a helmet could save your >>>life? Cite. > >>I've not made any claims about saving lives. > >See the trail above. In response to "Helmets are promoted because they >will Save Your Life[tm]. External evidence proves this claim is >false.", you said "Other evidence proves they do." So, cite it, >please. > >>You have seen in the >>other posts I have made the pro-studies and you have immediately >>denigrated them. You are anti-helmet in your postings, period. You >>have to lie about that by saying "skeptical." BS, you are anti-helmet. > >No, what happened is that after an extended period claiming that >helmets do good you finally went and looked at a sceptical site, found >links to a couple of studies which that site debunks in various ways, >and acted as if that were clinching proof. > >This is wrong for two reasons: > >First, www.cyclehelmets.org exists because people who were initially >quite happy to accept the benefits of helmets were challenged to prove >the case, and found it not only weak but strongly contradicted. The >studies you cited include the most widely cited and the most >notoriously bogus claims for efficacy. Not only have I read and >understood that study, which you clearly have not, but I also >mentioned before you ever did, suggesting you go away and read it. > >Second: you are still reversing the burden of proof. You are falsely >accusing people of denigrating helmets when all we have said is that >it is absurd to suggest they they provide protection beyond the >standards to which they are tested (which, incidentally, Tony and I >have also read and you have not). Remember, you are the one proposing >an intervention, you are the one who must prove their case. > >>>>As far as the rest of your questions, they are moot because you have >>>>shown you are incapable of accepting any evidence that runs contrarty >>>>to your position. >>>That statement is self-evidently false, since my position has reversed >>>in response to the evidence. >>Prove that previous position. Otherwise your statement is a lie and BS >>of which you have amply proven you do. > >Interesting how when you are challenged to provide evidence you turn >it round and start shouting insults at those who *clearly* know the >subject in far more detail than you do. > >Where are these supposed lies? Give posting and line numbers. > >As to the evidence, see above. It is easily, if not trivially thanks >to Google's limitations, verifiable. > >>>False. Actually I have come to reject much of what I previously >>>accepted, based on a far better understanding of it, and on a close >>>examination of a lot of conflicting evidence. You are clearly >>>unfamiliar with the research, I am not and neither is Tony. > >>Prove that previous position. > >Unnecessary, since my current position is the default in any >scientific debate, namely scepticism. I notice that thus far you have >made absolutely no effort whatsoever to prove your case other than >denigrating those who contradict you, however much evidence they might >offer. > >>>Actually what has happened over time is that helmets have got less >>>protective. but what you say is false. Where helmet wearing rates >>>have increased sharply over time, that will provide data on efficacy. >>>It's just that it fails to support the contention that helmets do >>>anything very much. > >>Prove that they have become less safe. > >"Cycle helmets sold in the UK today generally offer a lower level of >protection than those sold in the early 1990s. This is due in the main >to the introduction of the European EN1078 standard, which is weaker >than the Snell standards then used" - Brian Walker, Managing Director, >Head Protection Evaluations (http://hpe.site-street.net/). > >Read this: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1081.html written by Brian >Walker. Oh, and EN 1078 is about the same as CPSC, but CPSC is >entirely self-certified by the manufacturers, while EN 1078 requires >external validation. > >>I have know of two or three >>standards - Snell, ANSI and something else I cannot recall. Umnless >>yo9u can prove they have lessed the requirements, I'll not take your >>word for this. > >I am begriming to wonder if you know anything at all about the subject >you are spending so much time arguing about. I simply pointed out my limitations. What is your point? > >http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/Helmets_Timeline >gives some of the helmet standards and their introduction dates. Thank you, I have it loading currently. Yep, both ANSI and Snell are there, which is what I was familiar with. It seems that Snell has had several iterations of standards. I am assumming these have gotten better. ANSI is mentioned only once. I do not know if it remains as it was back then, is in existence or has new iterations. This page does not ell me. I'll be inter-editing this as I access information, so some schisms may occur in questions being asked after being answered. The only manufacturer mentioned is Bell. Hmmm. Bell does not meet Snell. Okay, that leaves only non-Bell produced helmets meeting a Snell requirement. Are ANSI standards for bike helmets still in existence? If so, have they changed and in which directlion? Does Bell meet those standards? If they are both out there, then not meeting one does not mean they do not meet both. Some nos and yesses. Oh my, the Bell I just looked at says it meets CPSC and http://www.helmets.org/standard.htm says CPSC and Snell B-90 are, more or less, equivalent. Snell has a B-95 standard out that is above that, so Bell lags Snell, but that, in and of itself, is not an indictment that their helmets are unsafe. The previous site omits saying anything about CPSC, but does not explain that it accepts only the latest Snell B-95. That is a significant ommission and skewing of the truth by a false implication that they do not meet Snell standards. They omit the word "current" that should be there. CPSC? How does it compare to ANSI and Snell standards? Is Bell certified by them? YEP. Compared to Snell B-90. ASTM and ANSI? In existence? ANSI has not been updated since 1990 (way too long in my view). Of course, it is a dead standard. BHSI: Looks like they have a good proposal. >In case you were wondering, yes I do have copies of many of them. I'm >guessing you don't... I've said as much, why did you bother asking? You knew the answer up front. >>>Me? What have you advanced that is actually evidential? All you have >>>done is to make unsubstantiated assertions. If you want to cite the >>>research which underpins your position, you'll find I am more than >>>happy to deal with evidence. That's how I converted from a helmet >>>enthusiast to a sceptic in the first place. > >>Right. More BS, Guy. I am questioning the evidence, how it was >>collected, how it is reported. You do not question any that is >>anti-helmet. 'Nuff said, you are anti-helmet and have been uless you >>can prove optherwise. > >No, you are questioning /half/ the evidence, based on a tacit >acceptance of the other half. That is very different. You are also >denouncing people as "anti helmet" simply because they do not accept >without question your strongly pro-helmet stance. Again, a clear >reversal of burden of proof. And a number of other fallacies along >the way. I have not accepted either half. I have questioned one sites methodologies that tell me the site is something other than what it pretends to be. I have been falsely accused by one side of being brainwashed by Bell and proven that false. I have been told that zero delay in getting though the body of research is not allowed; that I am expected to be up to speed right now, let alone the years they have spent doing this. I have asked questions about one site and gotten half-assed reponses on it that do not deal with the issues raied. Consequently, I question the veracity of those folks statements that they are skeptics. Content analysis points to that. In fact, (I may not yet have seen the reply) I have asked you prove that you were "pro-helmet." Seems Tony doesn't want to accept my word for being a researcher, why should I accept such a "pro-helmet" claim without any provable evidence? Nor Tony's and Peter's assertions of being neutral? There is nothing in evidence to prove those positions. There appears to be a double-standard in play. >Remember, you have yet to show any understanding whatsoever of the >evidence which underlies the position you have spent some hours >arguing, whereas Tony and I can quote chapter and verse. Perhaps you can. I can prove the one site I've tee'd off on is a propaganda site by its construction, inclusions and omissions. >So, go back and read the 1989 Seattle study, compare it with the >contemporaneous study co-authored by Rivara and see how you account >for the different helmet usage rates in the two. Part of those 900 works I have to read. BTW, out of all the studies, pro and con, which would be the best half-dozen on either side? That would help me focus: Let's see, with Tony, Peter and you, I should have a nice beginning. >Guy                               Date: 13 Nov 2005 21:17:59 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:27:44 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in <34ban1t55m1ac4pi7a73e16ijemeelo7pf@4ax.com >: >>I am begriming to wonder if you know anything at all about the subject >>you are spending so much time arguing about. >I simply pointed out my limitations. What is your point? That you have spent an awful lot of time defending a position for which you have clearly not read the evidential background - let alone read it in a critical fashion. >>http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/Helmets_Timeline >>gives some of the helmet standards and their introduction dates. >Thank you, I have it loading currently. Yep, both ANSI and Snell are >there, which is what I was familiar with. It seems that Snell has had >several iterations of standards. I am assumming these have gotten >better. You assume incorrectly. But why assume? I pointed you to a commentary by an acknowledged expert in the field which states exactly what has happened to the standards over time and why. <snip conjecture based on false premise > >BHSI: Looks like they have a good proposal. BHSI is Randy Swart. Since he practically wrote the CPSC standard. I wrote to him asking why he still quoted the known incorrect 85% figure, and he told me it was because the figure was by now so ingrained in the "injury prevention community" that a change "would not be helpful". Which translates as: don't confuse people with the facts. >>In case you were wondering, yes I do have copies of many of them. I'm >>guessing you don't... >I've said as much, why did you bother asking? You knew the answer up >front. So go and read them. >I have not accepted either half. I have questioned one sites >methodologies that tell me the site is something other than what it >pretends to be. Wrong. By promoting helmet use you implicitly accept the half of the evidence which has been shown to be weakest. Based on that you are excessively sceptical of the evidence collected from around the world over many years which shows that the relationship between head injury rates and helmet use is statistically un measurable. That is to say, sometimes helmet use is correlated with no change in rates, sometimes with an increase, in a couple of cases with a decrease (also experienced by pedestrians, who as a rule do not wear helmets). >I have been told that zero delay in getting though the body of >research is not allowed; that I am expected to be up to speed right >now, let alone the years they have spent doing this. Nope. You are being told that before you start arguing the toss, it is best to be properly informed. >There appears to be a double-standard in play. Indeed. Where is your scepticism of the pro-helmet arguments? I'm still waiting.... >>Remember, you have yet to show any understanding whatsoever of the >>evidence which underlies the position you have spent some hours >>arguing, whereas Tony and I can quote chapter and verse. >Perhaps you can. I can prove the one site I've tee'd off on is a >propaganda site by its construction, inclusions and omissions. False. You have /asserted/ that, but since I know for a fact that the major contributor only became a sceptic after he was asked to testify as an expert witness in a court case, and conducted his own review of the evidence, my personal knowledge is that propaganda is not what's going on. Interestingly you don't denounce BHSI as propaganda. Why is that? >BTW, out of all the studies, pro and con, which would be the best >half-dozen on either side? Probably the best starting point (in terms of copious references and stating the main points of the case for and against) is Cycle helmets: the case for and against, Hillman M., London: Policy Studies Institute, 1993 - it was written, I believe, for the British Medical Association. These are some of the influential studies: A case control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets, Thompson RS, Rivara FP, Thompson DC. 1989. New England Journal of Medicine: 1989 v320 n21 p1361-7 Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists, Thompson DC, Rivara FP, Thompson RS.. 2002. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: issue 4, 2002 Head injuries to bicyclists and the New Zealand bicycle helmet law, Scuffham P, Alsop J, Cryer C, Langley JD. 2000. Accident Analysis and Prevention: 2000 Jul;32(4):565-73 Injury patterns in cyclists attending an accident and emergency department: a comparison of helmet wearers and non-wearers, Maiis C, Summers CL, Browning C, Palmer CR. 1994. BMJ: 1994 Jun 11;308(6943):1537-40 Fatal injuries to bicycle riders in Auckland, Sage MD. 1985. NZ Med J: 25 Dec 1985 Vol 98 No 793 Head injuries are declining for child cyclists and pedestrians, but this is not related to helmet wearing data. The Cochrane Collaboration and bicycle helmets, Curnow WJ. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2005;37(3):569-573 Specific patterns of bicycle accident injuries - an analysis of correlation between level of head trauma and trauma mechanism, Möllman FT, Rieger B, Wassmann H. DGNC Köln, 2004. Changes in head injury with the New Zealand bicycle helmet law, Robinson DL. Accident Analysis & Prevention: 2001 Sep;33(5):687-91 Deaths of cyclists in London 1985-92: the hazards of road traffic, Gilbert K, McCarthy M. BMJ;1994:308(6943):1534-7 Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken                                 Date: 14 Nov 2005 00:17:30 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 21:17:59 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: >On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:27:44 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in ><34ban1t55m1ac4pi7a73e16ijemeelo7pf@4ax.com>: > >>>I am begriming to wonder if you know anything at all about the subject >>>you are spending so much time arguing about. > >>I simply pointed out my limitations. What is your point? > >That you have spent an awful lot of time defending a position for >which you have clearly not read the evidential background - let alone >read it in a critical fashion. > >>>http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/Helmets_Timeline >>>gives some of the helmet standards and their introduction dates. > >>Thank you, I have it loading currently. Yep, both ANSI and Snell are >>there, which is what I was familiar with. It seems that Snell has had >>several iterations of standards. I am assumming these have gotten >>better. > >You assume incorrectly. But why assume? I pointed you to a >commentary by an acknowledged expert in the field which states exactly >what has happened to the standards over time and why. As I have explained to you time and ahgain and you cannot seem to understand, it takes time to go from one place to another. I am not the genius you are that al;lowed you to do all this in .02 nanosecond. I'll get to stuff bit by bit. So, SNELL B-95 is not any better than the original SNELL/ANSI standard, is your statement? ><snip conjecture based on false premise> > >>BHSI: Looks like they have a good proposal. > >BHSI is Randy Swart. Since he practically wrote the CPSC standard. I >wrote to him asking why he still quoted the known incorrect 85% >figure, and he told me it was because the figure was by now so >ingrained in the "injury prevention community" that a change "would >not be helpful". Which translates as: don't confuse people with the >facts. > >>>In case you were wondering, yes I do have copies of many of them. I'm >>>guessing you don't... > >>I've said as much, why did you bother asking? You knew the answer up >>front. > >So go and read them. In due time, genius. Are you so stupid you haven't gotten the message that it will take me some time to do all this? God, have you a brian that works at all? A dozen times you have seen this, what part of it escapes you? >>I have not accepted either half. I have questioned one sites >>methodologies that tell me the site is something other than what it >>pretends to be. > >Wrong. By promoting helmet use you implicitly accept the half of the >evidence which has been shown to be weakest. Based on that you are >excessively sceptical of the evidence collected from around the world >over many years which shows that the relationship between head injury >rates and helmet use is statistically un measurable. That is to say, >sometimes helmet use is correlated with no change in rates, sometimes >with an increase, in a couple of cases with a decrease (also >experienced by pedestrians, who as a rule do not wear helmets). All I have expressed is my one case of a helmet being destroyed and my head being unscathed. >>I have been told that zero delay in getting though the body of >>research is not allowed; that I am expected to be up to speed right >>now, let alone the years they have spent doing this. > >Nope. You are being told that before you start arguing the toss, it >is best to be properly informed. No, you keep badgering me to look at the work, yet haven't the copurtesy or grace to allow me the time to do it. That IS a fact. >>There appears to be a double-standard in play. > >Indeed. Where is your scepticism of the pro-helmet arguments? I'm >still waiting.... See immediately above, clown. >>>Remember, you have yet to show any understanding whatsoever of the >>>evidence which underlies the position you have spent some hours >>>arguing, whereas Tony and I can quote chapter and verse. > >>Perhaps you can. I can prove the one site I've tee'd off on is a >>propaganda site by its construction, inclusions and omissions. > >False. You have /asserted/ that, but since I know for a fact that the >major contributor only became a sceptic after he was asked to testify >as an expert witness in a court case, and conducted his own review of >the evidence, my personal knowledge is that propaganda is not what's >going on. You know? That's as much heresay as anything lese that has been put up vis--a-vis the switch. I am waiting to see those prior to the switch public statements. I did look at one topic given me, it turned up out to be a dry well. Until that prior position can be proved by pubic information, is soes not exist. >Interestingly you don't denounce BHSI as propaganda. Why is that? I was looking at the movement of SNELL and ANSI standards and what happened to them in response to the charge that helmets today are less safe than they were. And I am puzzled by the scenario that SNELL B-95 raised the standard height and yet results in a less safe helmet??? I'll need ot look at those standards specifically. >>BTW, out of all the studies, pro and con, which would be the best >>half-dozen on either side? > >Probably the best starting point (in terms of copious references and >stating the main points of the case for and against) is Cycle helmets: >the case for and against, Hillman M., London: Policy Studies >Institute, 1993 - it was written, I believe, for the British Medical >Association. > >These are some of the influential studies: > >A case control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets, >Thompson RS, Rivara FP, Thompson DC. 1989. New England Journal of >Medicine: 1989 v320 n21 p1361-7 > >Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists, >Thompson DC, Rivara FP, Thompson RS.. 2002. Cochrane Database Syst >Rev: issue 4, 2002 > >Head injuries to bicyclists and the New Zealand bicycle helmet law, >Scuffham P, Alsop J, Cryer C, Langley JD. 2000. Accident Analysis and >Prevention: 2000 Jul;32(4):565-73 > >Injury patterns in cyclists attending an accident and emergency >department: a comparison of helmet wearers and non-wearers, >Maiis C, Summers CL, Browning C, Palmer CR. 1994. BMJ: 1994 Jun >11;308(6943):1537-40 > >Fatal injuries to bicycle riders in Auckland, Sage MD. 1985. NZ Med J: >25 Dec 1985 Vol 98 No 793 > >Head injuries are declining for child cyclists and pedestrians, but >this is not related to helmet wearing data. > >The Cochrane Collaboration and bicycle helmets, Curnow WJ. Accident >Analysis & Prevention. 2005;37(3):569-573 > >Specific patterns of bicycle accident injuries - an analysis of >correlation between level of head trauma and trauma mechanism, Möllman >FT, Rieger B, Wassmann H. DGNC Köln, 2004. > >Changes in head injury with the New Zealand bicycle helmet law, >Robinson DL. Accident Analysis & Prevention: 2001 Sep;33(5):687-91 > >Deaths of cyclists in London 1985-92: the hazards of road traffic, >Gilbert K, McCarthy M. BMJ;1994:308(6943):1534-7 Thank you for that list. Hopefullly, some of these are on the web. jim                                   Date: 19 Nov 2005 23:39:14 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:17:30 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in <v3hgn1ths2tfam49r9vh6789lr2toibnk7@4ax.com >: >As I have explained to you time and ahgain and you cannot seem to >understand, it takes time to go from one place to another So why did you keep arguing for so long after it became apparent that you were deeply unfamiliar with the subject on which you were tackling people who have spent some considerable time researching it? That's a rhetorical question, by the way. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken                                     Date: 25 Nov 2005 14:33:13 From: James Lane Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 23:39:14 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: >On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:17:30 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in ><v3hgn1ths2tfam49r9vh6789lr2toibnk7@4ax.com>: > >>As I have explained to you time and ahgain and you cannot seem to >>understand, it takes time to go from one place to another > >So why did you keep arguing for so long after it became apparent that >you were deeply unfamiliar with the subject on which you were tackling >people who have spent some considerable time researching it? > >That's a rhetorical question, by the way. But my answer is not. I have been talking about the reporting source, in case that flies right over your head for the dozenth time. That I do know something about, at least enough to examine where they are coming from and are they grinding an axe - something that went right over your head, pitiable researcher that you claim to be. jim                                       Date: 26 Nov 2005 10:47:15 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:33:13 -0800, James Lane <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com > said in <a54fo19fuit5b7nj9040dlvasip6ag510c@4ax.com >: >>So why did you keep arguing for so long after it became apparent that >>you were deeply unfamiliar with the subject on which you were tackling >>people who have spent some considerable time researching it? >>That's a rhetorical question, by the way. >But my answer is not. I have been talking about the reporting source, >in case that flies right over your head for the dozenth time. That I >do know something about, at least enough to examine where they are >coming from and are they grinding an axe - something that went right >over your head, pitiable researcher that you claim to be. I make no claims to be a researcher, I am just a reasonably intelligent person whose response to being informed of the conflicting evidence was to go out and read it, rather than attack everybody who contradicted my cherished beliefs. And the fact is that one of your major grounds for criticism of the sceptical side is that we are unwilling to persuade prestigious academic journals to waive copyright in order to save you the effort of a trip to the library. Sorry, but that's just how it is. I had to get the data from the library, from authors and from the publishers by paying them actual money. I was interested enough to actually do that. It seems you are more concerned to maintain your cherished beliefs than to find out any facts. In the case of other religious believers who refuse to read or address sceptical work, this is often an indication of a deeper insecurity in the strength of their faith, so I hold out some small hope that you might one day come to address the evidence rather than the messenger. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken                         Date: 05 Nov 2005 14:44:44 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: > > As far as I know there are very few anti-helmet zealots. I know maybe > two or three people who are actively anti-helmet. I suppose you could > describe Tony and me as zealously sceptical, in that we require that > those proposing an intervention demonstrate a credible evidential > basis for it. > I'd prefer to be described as a pro-evidence zealot. I used to assume "common sense" and religiously wore a helmet thinking it was good. I then got triggered into looking up and reading some of the research and realised that most of the evidence for helmets was very poor or poorly carried out research while there was a lot of good evidence for helmets doing nothing or causing greater harm. So far that position has not changed but if a well constructed study came out tomorrow that demonstrated that helmets did prevent head injuries I would reconsider my stance very seriously. At present I am happy with the position that they do not help but the reason I am very active in promoting the evidence against helmets is that lots of people get very concerned that I am not wearing a helmet and those same people see me as needing one because cycling is "an extremely dangerous activity" in which I am taking my life in my hand if I don't wear a helmet. I blame that view on the helmet makers and the pro-helmet lobbyists who have to portray that view to sell their products or justify their lobbying. That is what I am fighting against. My ideal is to get lots of people cycling like the Netherlands where, because of the numbers cycling, its much safer and only one in a thousand thinks it is worth wearing a helmet for this natural everyday activity. Where in the UK you get the "Oh my god, you're not wearing a helmet" reaction, in the Netherlands if you want to wear one you get a puzzled "Fine but why would you want to" reaction. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham                       Date: 05 Nov 2005 10:06:11 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > > The only way to know if they work is to make a safer helmet. If it > becomes accepted (I don't like mandated use), serious injury levels > SHOULD decrease because of the increased safety. If it does not, then > they don't work. If the injuries ride, they are detrimental. If they > go down, helmets work. How are you going to make a safer helmet. Are we all going to end up wearing motorbike helmets? Then do we need to put race car style neck braces in place because the massively increased head weight causes neck injury problem? I would love to know how you plan to do this in a way that protects against the major source of head injury - motor vehicles - and is acceptable to wear (heat, comfort, hair styling etc) to most people. And given that cyclist head injuries are no worse than pedestrian head injuries and both extremely rare, why bother? Why not put the effort into things that are shown to make a real difference to head injuries - cyclist and driver training, road design, traffic speed etc? > > The problem is the current state-of-the-art helmet's low standard of > safety provision. > And the perception of too many people that it is a magical life saver in all situations. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham                         Date: 05 Nov 2005 02:59:15 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 10:06:11 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> The only way to know if they work is to make a safer helmet. If it >> becomes accepted (I don't like mandated use), serious injury levels >> SHOULD decrease because of the increased safety. If it does not, then >> they don't work. If the injuries ride, they are detrimental. If they >> go down, helmets work. > >How are you going to make a safer helmet. Are we all going to end up >wearing motorbike helmets? Then do we need to put race car style neck >braces in place because the massively increased head weight causes neck >injury problem? I would love to know how you plan to do this in a way >that protects against the major source of head injury - motor vehicles - >and is acceptable to wear (heat, comfort, hair styling etc) to most >people. And given that cyclist head injuries are no worse than >pedestrian head injuries and both extremely rare, why bother? Why not >put the effort into things that are shown to make a real difference to >head injuries - cyclist and driver training, road design, traffic speed etc? If you read what I wrote and understood it , I said this would be the only way to prove helmets work. I ALSO SAID, in case it went flying right over your head, and you did clip it out, there are dangers in helmets being improved to a point where they make the head safer in terms of increased neck injuries and the like. > >> The problem is the current state-of-the-art helmet's low standard of >> safety provision. >> > >And the perception of too many people that it is a magical life saver in >all situations. Who ever said it was a life saver in "all" situations? Got a source for that or is it some fantasy of yours? I've never heard anyone silly enough to make that claim. So why are you red herring it? jim                           Date: 05 Nov 2005 12:35:01 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > > Who ever said it was a life saver in "all" situations? Got a source > for that or is it some fantasy of yours? I've never heard anyone silly > enough to make that claim. So why are you red herring it? > Dorsch comes close with 90% of all fatalities saved by helmets. TRT 1989 is close on his heels with 88% of brain injuries. Cook and Sheik recently published a paper (Inj Prev 2003; 9: 266-267) on the protective effect of helmets. They subsequently accepted they had made a mathematical error in their data analysis which when corrected meant that helmets reduced head injuries by 200% (i.e. every helmet worn prevented two head injuries). Despite this result being nonsensical they stood by their study conclusions that helmets reduced head injuries and refused to accept that there must have been other confounding factors involved. One can only conclude that they believe helmets save lives in double "all" situations. Raleigh Cycles claim on their website "Always wear a Helmet, as this will prevent brain damage if you take a nasty fall." http://www.raleighbikes.com/knowledge/index.html?sub=3 under essential equipment. Even self proclaimed "helmet expert" Steven Scharf's pro-helmet site says: "The two biggest negative aspects of helmet promotion are the following: 1. They cause uninformed people to believe that cycling is an inherently dangerous activity. 2. They cause uninformed people to believe that helmets will mitigate all of the dangers that do exist." -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham                             Date: 05 Nov 2005 19:45:00 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 12:35:01 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> Who ever said it was a life saver in "all" situations? Got a source >> for that or is it some fantasy of yours? I've never heard anyone silly >> enough to make that claim. So why are you red herring it? >> > >Dorsch comes close with 90% of all fatalities saved by helmets. TRT >1989 is close on his heels with 88% of brain injuries. coming close is not the same. Do you always make such grandiose overstatements? >Cook and Sheik recently published a paper (Inj Prev 2003; 9: 266-267) on >the protective effect of helmets. They subsequently accepted they had >made a mathematical error in their data analysis which when corrected >meant that helmets reduced head injuries by 200% (i.e. every helmet worn >prevented two head injuries). Despite this result being nonsensical >they stood by their study conclusions that helmets reduced head injuries >and refused to accept that there must have been other confounding >factors involved. One can only conclude that they believe helmets save >lives in double "all" situations. Nice try. Failed again. >Raleigh Cycles claim on their website "Always wear a Helmet, as this >will prevent brain damage if you take a nasty fall." >http://www.raleighbikes.com/knowledge/index.html?sub=3 under essential >equipment. WOW. Even the helmet manufacturers don't say this. >Even self proclaimed "helmet expert" Steven Scharf's pro-helmet site says: > >"The two biggest negative aspects of helmet promotion are the following: > 1. They cause uninformed people to believe that cycling is an >inherently dangerous activity. I doubt that is entirely the result of "promotion" bacause the usual person an uniformed cyclist deals with that has an "expert" status is bike shop personnel. My perspective on why I wear a helmet is that, sooner or later, you will hit the ground. There are few things there softer my head. I'll probably miss those. > 2. They cause uninformed people to believe that helmets will mitigate >all of the dangers that do exist." Again, the bike shop people have a lot to fo with this, not just promotion. My mother's neighbor went to buy a bike for her kid. They did NO looking at bike mags or anything else, saw a LBS and went right there. Kid wears a helmet. No promotional impact at all. The LBS, period. jim               Date: 02 Nov 2005 21:45:39 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > The information only includes SERIOUS injury data. That information > comes from hospitals/insurance data. NON-SERIOUS injury data has not > been reported nor included in the study. > > What part of that escapes you? None of it. If helmets are taking serious injuries out of the figures for SERIOUS injury then the SERIOUS injury data will be changed by that fact. It isn't. What part of that escapes *you*? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                 Date: 02 Nov 2005 22:42:39 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:45:39 +0000, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >> The information only includes SERIOUS injury data. That information >> comes from hospitals/insurance data. NON-SERIOUS injury data has not >> been reported nor included in the study. >> >> What part of that escapes you? > >None of it. If helmets are taking serious injuries out of the >figures for SERIOUS injury then the SERIOUS injury data will be >changed by that fact. It isn't. > >What part of that escapes *you*? They are not _taking_ anything out of anything.They are preventing their inclusion from the get-go. Just how many helmetless accidents have you had? Your thinking is certainly addled. jim                   Date: 03 Nov 2005 08:56:41 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > They are not _taking_ anything out of anything.They are preventing > their inclusion from the get-go. If they are regrading what should have been a serious injury into a non-serious injury then the serious injuries are being reduced /with time/, so they would have been included before helmet use, but no longer are. If you want to persist with your view that nobody is capable of factoring in other changes with time then have a look at places where MHLs have suddenly pushed the wearing rates from low to high practically overnight, so in those cases the comparison of one month to the next shows you a very good chunk of data with more or less nothing much changing /except/ the helmet wearing rate. And what happens to the serious head injuries with all those helmets that weren't in use in the very recent past pushing serious injuries into being minor, unreported ones? Nothing. And people in those places have anecdotes just like yours, despite your continuing insistence that your home is some exceptional case and nothing that happens anywhere else has any relation to it. Your mind is so closed on this issue that you cannot address it clearly. So there isn't much point in telling you again and again where your arguments break down. Cool off and go and read the research and poke holes in the studies directly, if you can. We do have some things in common. I used to always wear a helmet and felt it irresponsible not to. I had personal anecdotes supporting their use too. But there the similarities seem to end. When confronted with a message I didn't believe, having initially scoffed at it I figured if it really was nonsense it should be easy to knock holes in the papers (I'm a scientific professional, after all (so are Tony and Guy, as it happens, and they also used to Believe In Helmets)), so off I went to read them, fully expecting to rubbish them. Though it was easy to rubbish a lot of the pro-helmet research it wasn't obvious where flaws in the sceptical work were so I had to do a lot of hard thinking about the matter, and at the end of it I changed my mind. You seem to think my mind must be closed, but since I've already done a difficult U-turn on this issue that's good evidence it is not the case. It's much easier to just assume you're correct and your common sense is infallible but that doesn't make it right. If you've got the guts and the intelligence go and read the work directly. Since it's clear you can't or won't understand what you're being told by several people here, maybe the original work will have a bit more effect. Time to sign off from going around in circles with you. I'll be happy to continue debate with anyone else who hasn't shut their head. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                     Date: 04 Nov 2005 23:23:57 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 08:56:41 +0000, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >> They are not _taking_ anything out of anything.They are preventing >> their inclusion from the get-go. > >If they are regrading what should have been a serious injury into a >non-serious injury then the serious injuries are being reduced /with >time/, so they would have been included before helmet use, but no longer >are. > >If you want to persist with your view that nobody is capable of >factoring in other changes with time then have a look at places where >MHLs ??? If you're going to use an abbreviation that everyone might not know, at least introduce it properly. I deduce ? helmet laws . . . >have suddenly pushed the wearing rates from low to high practically >overnight, so in those cases the comparison of one month to the next >shows you a very good chunk of data with more or less nothing much >changing /except/ the helmet wearing rate. And what happens to the >serious head injuries with all those helmets that weren't in use in the >very recent past pushing serious injuries into being minor, unreported ones? IN another subthread of this topic, I did give a short space to information that runs directly contrary to the studies that have been pointed out by your brigade. >Nothing. > >And people in those places have anecdotes just like yours, despite your >continuing insistence that your home is some exceptional case and >nothing that happens anywhere else has any relation to it. There is evidence to the contrary, pete, you just conveniently overlook it because it goes against your predisposition, while you glean every word of that which agrees with your position. >Your mind is so closed on this issue that you cannot address it clearly. > So there isn't much point in telling you again and again where your >arguments break down. Cool off and go and read the research and poke >holes in the studies directly, if you can. My mind is open. Your is the one that is not capable of being anything other than sealed shut. Nice try, mentalmidget, but t doesn't fly. This does, though (I'ce included what I referred to earlier so you can see there is some evidence that backs what I have been saying and to the direct detriment of your position: Dorsch, 1987 -90% fatalities Thompson, Rivara, Thompson, 1989 -85% head injuries, -88% brain injuries Wasserman, 1990 -29% concussions, -82% skull fractures McDermott, 1993 -39% head injuries, but no significant reduction for adults Thompson, Rivara, Thompson, 1996 -69% head injuries, -65% brain injuries And gues what, moron, it comes from one of your favortte sites: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1139 Table 1 Injury savings predicted by case-control studies >We do have some things in common. I used to always wear a helmet and >felt it irresponsible not to. I had personal anecdotes supporting their >use too. But there the similarities seem to end. When confronted with >a message I didn't believe, having initially scoffed at it I figured if >it really was nonsense it should be easy to knock holes in the papers >(I'm a scientific professional, after all (so are Tony and Guy, as it >happens, and they also used to Believe In Helmets)), I'm a research professional and am used to looking at what IS NOT being said as well as what is being said, and that, your posting tells me, you are very weak on. >so off I went to >read them, fully expecting to rubbish them. Though it was easy to >rubbish a lot of the pro-helmet research it wasn't obvious where flaws >in the sceptical work were so I had to do a lot of hard thinking about >the matter, and at the end of it I changed my mind. You seem to think >my mind must be closed, but since I've already done a difficult U-turn >on this issue that's good evidence it is not the case. It's much easier >to just assume you're correct and your common sense is infallible but >that doesn't make it right. If you've got the guts and the intelligence >go and read the work directly. Since it's clear you can't or won't >understand what you're being told by several people here, maybe the >original work will have a bit more effect. Funny that you diodn;'t mention that little bit I just got fo you from a site many antis use to slam helmets. Interesting that you did not even see it. > >Time to sign off from going around in circles with you. I'll be happy >to continue debate with anyone else who hasn't shut their head. If mine is shut, at least it was open. That is more than I can say for you. jim                       Date: 07 Nov 2005 09:09:16 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > My mind is open. Your is the one that is not capable of being anything > other than sealed shut. Nice try, mentalmidget, but t doesn't fly. Sorry not to be about to point out holes in your position, but I've been down in London for a few days. > This does, though (I'ce included what I referred to earlier so you can > see there is some evidence that backs what I have been saying and to > the direct detriment of your position: > > Dorsch, 1987 > -90% fatalities > Thompson, Rivara, Thompson, 1989 > -85% head injuries, -88% brain injuries > Wasserman, 1990 > -29% concussions, -82% skull fractures > McDermott, 1993 > -39% head injuries, but no significant reduction for adults > Thompson, Rivara, Thompson, 1996 > -69% head injuries, -65% brain injuries > > And gues what, moron, it comes from one of your favortte sites: > http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1139 As has been pointed out to you, www.cyclehelmets.org is a general repository of helmet research information, not a propaganda site, so it has references from /all/ angles. Always useful when /properly/ researching to find out as much as you can, rather than restricting oneself to the bits that conform to your predetermined conclusion, although that option does make life much easier. More instructive is to read the whole papers and some of the commentary as well as just one line sumies, which demonstrates exactly why the above can't be trusted as much as you trust them. For example, the Thompson, Rivara, Thompson, 1996 paper is a second attempt on the methods of the '89 paper, but despite the authors revising their numbers down people still quote the older, higher ones. It's as if they don't trust the more recent figures from the same authors! Of course, the '96 figures are still impressive, but since they use an assumption that require helmets to save 75% of /leg/ injuries (!) not everyone is out to believe it word for word. > Table 1 > Injury savings predicted by case-control studies Though you don't bother reading the voluminous data on why C-C studies are inherently untrustworthy. > I'm a research professional and am used to looking at what IS NOT > being said as well as what is being said, and that, your posting tells > me, you are very weak on. So why don't you *read* the research, rather than the one-line sumies? Or did you miss what was said, that shows you ridiculous methodologies like comparing two groups of wildly different people and assuming all differences were down to a single variable? And there you've been going on about missing variables not stated and when people come right out and document them for you it passes you straight by. > Funny that you diodn;'t mention that little bit I just got fo you from > a site many antis use to slam helmets. Interesting that you did not > even see it. Of course I've seen it, and read the research, /and/ read and understood why it can't be trusted. Do you /really/ think that comparing poor urban kids on busy streets to affluent kids riding in parks and assuming all injury differences are due to the latter group wearing helmets makes for a useful research result? It seems you do, if you've actually read Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, because you trot out their figures from just such an assumption as if they must be true. And you're a "research professional"? Deary, deary me. When I say "read the research", I mean read the research. Not skim over sumies looking for something that suits you and assuming it's right while ignoring anything else. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                         Date: 11 Nov 2005 15:40:04 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:09:16 +0000, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >> My mind is open. Your is the one that is not capable of being anything >> other than sealed shut. Nice try, mentalmidget, but t doesn't fly. > >Sorry not to be about to point out holes in your position, but I've been >down in London for a few days. And I in and out of Mexico on a project. >> This does, though (I'ce included what I referred to earlier so you can >> see there is some evidence that backs what I have been saying and to >> the direct detriment of your position: >> >> Dorsch, 1987 >> -90% fatalities >> Thompson, Rivara, Thompson, 1989 >> -85% head injuries, -88% brain injuries >> Wasserman, 1990 >> -29% concussions, -82% skull fractures >> McDermott, 1993 >> -39% head injuries, but no significant reduction for adults >> Thompson, Rivara, Thompson, 1996 >> -69% head injuries, -65% brain injuries >> >> And gues what, moron, it comes from one of your favortte sites: >> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1139 > >As has been pointed out to you, www.cyclehelmets.org is a general >repository of helmet research information, not a propaganda site, so it >has references from /all/ angles. Always useful when /properly/ >researching to find out as much as you can, rather than restricting >oneself to the bits that conform to your predetermined conclusion, >although that option does make life much easier. It is, by the way it is assembled and presents information, a propaganda site. It advances one side and denies the other any voice through bogus statements, ie copyright. You missed the thrust of the aforementioned. >More instructive is to read the whole papers and some of the commentary >as well as just one line sumies, which demonstrates exactly why the >above can't be trusted as much as you trust them. I've not said anything about trusting one source or another. I have said thsi site is loaded up one-way. That is a fact. > For example, the >Thompson, Rivara, Thompson, 1996 paper is a second attempt on the >methods of the '89 paper, but despite the authors revising their numbers >down people still quote the older, higher ones. That is not a problem of the research, is it? It is the fault of the people who have an axe to grind and use whatever figures best support their view. Somewhat like you and Tony do. > It's as if they don't >trust the more recent figures from the same authors! Of course, the '96 >figures are still impressive, but since they use an assumption that >require helmets to save 75% of /leg/ injuries (!) not everyone is out to >believe it word for word. >> Table 1 >> Injury savings predicted by case-control studies > >Though you don't bother reading the voluminous data on why C-C studies >So why don't you *read* the research, . . . >Of course I've seen it, and read the research, /and/ read and understood >why it can't be trusted. . . . I understand your are a super-intelligence and it took you zero time and effort to collect, read, analyze and understand all 900 of those reseach pieces. I have already acknowledged that I cannot do that and will be looking into them over time, something you lack the courtesy of affording to me. Arrogant aren't you? >When I say "read the research", I mean read the research. Not skim over >sumies looking for something that suits you and assuming it's right >while ignoring anything else. Are you dense? As I said quite clearly at the time, it will take some tiome on my side to start wading through all this material. Were there any words I used you do not understand? My comments vis-a-vis the site mentioned, it is a propaganda site. One sided. That is a fact and your wishes it were otherwise will not change that. propaganda - an organized program of publicity, selected information, etc., used to propagate a doctine, practice, etc. RD Oxford, 1996 The key phrase is "selected information." The site promotes one side by inclusion of copyrighted works and excludes the other by misdirection. One-sided propaganda as a tool. jim .                           Date: 14 Nov 2005 09:52:39 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > It is, by the way it is assembled and presents information, a > propaganda site. It advances one side and denies the other any voice If it did this you wouldn't have found the information you did there. > I've not said anything about trusting one source or another. You have demonstrated who you trust by your statements. > I have > said thsi site is loaded up one-way. That is a fact. A bit like a site that loads up the evidence for Pi not being 3 might be "one way"... > That is not a problem of the research, is it? It is a problem of presentation of research. The presentation by the pro-helmet sites is far more obviously skewed than any sceptic sites AFAICT. Do cite exceptions, if you have seen any. > It is the fault of the people who have an axe to grind and use > whatever figures best support their view. Somewhat like you and Tony > do. Wrong again. This is quite self evidently the way that pro-helmet sites and studies work to a far greater degree than skeptics. Do cite exceptions, if you have seen any. > I understand your are a super-intelligence and it took you zero time > and effort to collect, read, analyze and understand all 900 of those > reseach pieces. I haven't read them all. But I have read a number of them, which appears to be a number more than you ever have. Particularly, I have looked at the most oft quoted pro helmet papers from pro-helmet sources, and have found the red flags you keep on about in superabundance. I have not found those to anything like the same extent with population data studies, and AFAICT nor has anyone else. > I have already acknowledged that I cannot do that and > will be looking into them over time, something you lack the courtesy > of affording to me. Arrogant aren't you? Arrogance is assuming the answer before you have done the research, which you persist in doing. > Are you dense? As I said quite clearly at the time, it will take some > tiome on my side to start wading through all this material. And in the meantime you should stop coming across as if you know all the answers in advance of any research. It isn't just common sense or finding some nice numbers in a table. > The key phrase is "selected information." The site promotes one side > by inclusion of copyrighted works and excludes the other by > misdirection. Actually it includes it with comprehensive references, which anyone doing real research can easily follow. Come back when you've done your research, anywhere you want to do it, and when, and only when, you have then you'll be in a position to say how effective helmets can be expected to be. Not until. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                             Date: 16 Nov 2005 02:49:19 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 09:52:39 +0000, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > brain farted: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >> It is, by the way it is assembled and presents information, a >> propaganda site. It advances one side and denies the other any voice > >If it did this you wouldn't have found the information you did there. It does. Yo are blind so you cannot see it. Pity. Send me an addy and I'll send a white cane your way. >> I've not said anything about trusting one source or another. > >You have demonstrated who you trust by your statements. I don't trust you, that's for sure. Of course, that shouldn't phase you a bit. >> I have >> said thsi site is loaded up one-way. That is a fact. > >A bit like a site that loads up the evidence for Pi not being 3 might be >"one way"... Yep and I'll bet you can cite me chapter and verse on flat earth. What an ignorant comment. Expected, though I was hoping you would come through with something actually a bit intelligent. >> That is not a problem of the research, is it? > >It is a problem of presentation of research. The presentation by the >pro-helmet sites is far more obviously skewed than any sceptic sites >AFAICT. Do cite exceptions, if you have seen any. I'll get to them, but I see you also have failed reading comprehension 101 on me having a bit of time to locate and get them. Understandably, I am envious of your aboility to press your nose against your computer and take it in by osmosis. >> It is the fault of the people who have an axe to grind and use >> whatever figures best support their view. Somewhat like you and Tony >> do. > >Wrong again. This is quite self evidently the way that pro-helmet sites >and studies work to a far greater degree than skeptics. Do cite >exceptions, if you have seen any. See above, moron. >> I understand your are a super-intelligence and it took you zero time >> and effort to collect, read, analyze and understand all 900 of those >> reseach pieces. > >I haven't read them all. But I have read a number of them, which >appears to be a number more than you ever have. Particularly, I have >looked at the most oft quoted pro helmet papers from pro-helmet sources, >and have found the red flags you keep on about in superabundance. I >have not found those to anything like the same extent with population >data studies, and AFAICT nor has anyone else. As I said, I'll need a bit of time to get to them. Any words in that you still do not undestand? >> I have already acknowledged that I cannot do that and >> will be looking into them over time, something you lack the courtesy >> of affording to me. Arrogant aren't you? > >Arrogance is assuming the answer before you have done the research, >which you persist in doing. Right, another brain fart of yours. >> Are you dense? As I said quite clearly at the time, it will take some >> tiome on my side to start wading through all this material. > >And in the meantime you should stop coming across as if you know all the >answers in advance of any research. It isn't just common sense or >finding some nice numbers in a table. I haven's said much except concerning the bias of the one site I have looked at. Let's see, that statement has gone over your head a dozen times. Anyone want to help me put it in goo-goo baby language so this dolt gets it? >> The key phrase is "selected information." The site promotes one side >> by inclusion of copyrighted works and excludes the other by >> misdirection. > >Actually it includes it with comprehensive references, which anyone >doing real research can easily follow. As was said "selected." >Come back when you've done your research, anywhere you want to do it, >and when, and only when, you have then you'll be in a position to say >how effective helmets can be expected to be. Not until. > Come back when you get an intellect. Now, MF'er, give me some time. Plain enough for you? jim                               Date: 16 Nov 2005 22:37:19 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > > As I said, I'll need a bit of time to get to them. Any words in that > you still do not undestand? > I think we are all surprised at your original willingness to take a strong stand that helmets are beneficial and the research is biased when you now agree that you haven't read the research and it will take you some time before you will have done. We haven't done it by osmosis but by detailed reading and investigation over a period of time. Guy has accumulated and read virtually all of the published research and had detailed discussions with world experts in the field for example. If I have a subject that I am unfamiliar with I don't take your stance of pretending to know until I'm found out. I say at the outset I am not familiar with it. I can then either spend time reading and researching to inform myself or seek out and listen critically to the views of informed experts. What you have done is a bit like me telling me your last CI report got it completely wrong when I haven't even read the report you produced. As Pete says, come back if and when you have read it and we can have a sensible discussion. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham                               Date: 16 Nov 2005 13:45:21 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > Now, MF'er, give me some time. Plain enough for you? If you didn't spend so much time insulting me then you'd have more time. Come back when you've done your reading, take as much time as you need. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                       Date: 05 Nov 2005 10:17:23 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > > I'm a research professional and am used to looking at what IS NOT > being said as well as what is being said, and that, your posting tells > me, you are very weak on. > I find that very hard to believe - and I speak as someone who sits on government research review committees and has organised and chaired major international research conferences. You are failing to display some of the basic behaviours I would expect of a research professional. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham                         Date: 05 Nov 2005 02:51:37 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 10:17:23 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> I'm a research professional and am used to looking at what IS NOT >> being said as well as what is being said, and that, your posting tells >> me, you are very weak on. >> > >I find that very hard to believe - and I speak as someone who sits on >government research review committees and has organised and chaired >major international research conferences. You are failing to display >some of the basic behaviours I would expect of a research professional. What you get here and what you get there are not to be confused, your silliness aside. Take a look at what I have posted about some of the research and the red flags that came up. You, supposedly, lo So much for your capabilities. I wonder how many bogus pieces of information have slid right past you. jim                           Date: 05 Nov 2005 12:38:49 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > > Take a look at what I have posted about some of the research and the > red flags that came up. You, supposedly, lo So much for your > capabilities. I wonder how many bogus pieces of information have slid > right past you. > I have and my judgement is unchanged. You can Google my credentials; lets hear about yours. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham                             Date: 05 Nov 2005 20:12:24 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 12:38:49 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> Take a look at what I have posted about some of the research and the >> red flags that came up. You, supposedly, lo So much for your >> capabilities. I wonder how many bogus pieces of information have slid >> right past you. >> > >I have and my judgement is unchanged. You can Google my credentials; >lets hear about yours. Regardless of your credentials, the items I pointed out evidently slid right past you. Those are definitely red flags. Or do you disagree with that and why? jim                               Date: 06 Nov 2005 09:29:36 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > > Regardless of your credentials, the items I pointed out evidently slid > right past you. Those are definitely red flags. Or do you disagree > with that and why? > Do you have any research credentials? Or is that claim just another part of your bluster? So come on, put up or is anonymity the only way you can maintain the charade? Guy has already replied to your "red flags" and it is clear you have not read or critically assessed any of the reports you are putting forward or you would know for example that Dorsch only studies hard shell helmets, not the current soft shell ones, and does not even explain the method by which she arrives at her estimated 90% figure, she just quotes it. She also points out that there are shortcomings in data she uses and that more research is needed on the findings, research curiously that she never did. The reason why perhaps becomes clear as she disowns her own research when questioned about it by the Australian House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Transport Safety: "That was a hypothetical procedure. ... it was based largely on an adult group of cyclists and because we went through a rather hypothetical statistical procedure to arrive at those numbers, I think one would have to be very careful in generalising those findings perhaps to very young bicyclists. ... one has to be very careful in making estimates of how effective universal bicycle helmet usage would be in reducing deaths and serious injuries. In our paper we did, sure, put estimates on it but as a very hypothetical procedure. I was a bit distressed by some of the reports I had seen that suggested that 75 per cent of deaths could be prevented by everyone wearing very good, hard helmets."..... "When you read those [coroners'] reports ... you start to have some doubt that even the best helmets available would be as effective as we might think." And this is for the much more robust hard shell (motorbike style) helmets. Bet that one slid right past you but it would if you've never read the paper in the first place let alone done a standard citation review, both of which any "research professional" would be embarrassed not to have done. I don't have time to do your work for you on your other "red flags" but the information is fairly easy to come by and I leave it as an exercise for you. Next? -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham                                 Date: 11 Nov 2005 15:17:40 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 09:29:36 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> Regardless of your credentials, the items I pointed out evidently slid >> right past you. Those are definitely red flags. Or do you disagree >> with that and why? >> > >Do you have any research credentials? Or is that claim just another >part of your bluster? So come on, put up or is anonymity the only way >you can maintain the charade? IYes I do. I do projects for businesses in competitive intelligence. As you should well know, none of that ever hits the public nor do we broadcast who we work for. If you do not know anything about that particular field, you can check www.scip.org and any of the UK members. You will see them publish on the field of CI, but not the corporate studies they have done. The last published research I did was in 1992. Since them, I have operated in the area mentioned.. Your public reserach is admirable, Tony, but not all reseach can be in tbe public. Now, deal with those red flags, Tony. If you hot any site purporting to be a neutral site and are met with the following things: 1. lack of copyrights 2. one-sided display of information 3. contains copyrighted materials in support of that one side 4. contains no such information to the opposite 5. cites copyright issues with doing #4 6. dismisses all contrary evidence Would that raise a flag in your mind? Simple question: _____ Yes _____ No >Guy has already replied to your "red flags" and it is clear you have not >read or critically assessed any of the reports you are putting forward >or you would know for example that Dorsch only studies hard shell >helmets, not the current soft shell ones, and does not even explain the >method by which she arrives at her estimated 90% figure, she just quotes >it. She also points out that there are shortcomings in data she uses >and that more research is needed on the findings, research curiously >that she never did. If you bothered reading what I said, there is alot of ground to be made up on my side (some 900 pieces on bike elmets and safety). I have commented only on this one, supposedly neutral but patently biased, source of information. That it is such, you cannot argue with, can you. Stay focused, Tony. One step at a time. Almost every piece of research written sites shortcomings of the study, Tony. Usually under a heading along the lines of "Limitations." I'm betting alkmost all of the 900 mentioned elsewhere have such a section. >The reason why perhaps becomes clear as she disowns her own research >when questioned about it by the Australian House of Representatives >Standing Committee on Road Transport Safety: And the question was? >"That was a hypothetical procedure. ... it was based largely on an adult >group of cyclists and because we went through a rather hypothetical >statistical procedure to arrive at those numbers, I think one would have >to be very careful in generalising those findings perhaps to very young >bicyclists. ... one has to be very careful in making estimates of how >effective universal bicycle helmet usage would be in reducing deaths and >serious injuries. In our paper we did, sure, put estimates on it but as >a very hypothetical procedure. I was a bit distressed by some of the >reports I had seen that suggested that 75 per cent of deaths could be >prevented by everyone wearing very good, hard helmets."..... "When you >read those [coroners'] reports ... you start to have some doubt that >even the best helmets available would be as effective as we might think." Disowned? Hardly. You've overstated the case, Tony. But that is becoming expected behavior on your part. Nice try. She limits it, but does not say it is wrong. There is always an element of doubt in research. >And this is for the much more robust hard shell (motorbike style) >helmets. Bet that one slid right past you but it would if you've never >read the paper in the first place let alone done a standard citation >review, both of which any "research professional" would be embarrassed >not to have done. See my note above about catching up, Tony. Not eveyone can be an instant expert, like you try to be woith your false conclusions on my background. >I don't have time to do your work for you on your other "red flags" but >the information is fairly easy to come by and I leave it as an exercise >for you. See above. Yada, yada, yada.                                   Date: 13 Nov 2005 20:47:23 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:17:40 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in <hi8an1lgbkdcp6eqhf1cu4oivri1kdq1sa@4ax.com >: >IYes I do. I do projects for businesses in competitive intelligence. >As you should well know, none of that ever hits the public nor do we >broadcast who we work for. If you do not know anything about that >particular field, you can check www.scip.org and any of the UK >members. You will see them publish on the field of CI, but not the >corporate studies they have done. I have done a lot of work in this area, on contract and employed by medical and pharmaceutical companies. CI does not compare to the rigours of original research. Much of it is a low-level data gathering. But to answer at least one of your points, there is a copyright statement: "Unless otherwise stated, the copyright to all material on this site is owned by the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation. Site content may be copied and redistributed freely so long as the source is acknowledged and it is not modified in any way or reproduced out of context." Those materials which are copyrighted and appear on the site, appear by permission of the individual authors or publishers. A good example is this: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2017.pdf which is copyright of John Franklin and CTC, the UK's national cyclists; organisation. For some reason the publishers of the 1989 Seattle study are unwilling to grant a copyright release on something for which they (still) make money on reprints. Especially when the requester is openly sceptical of its quality. But do be assured that I have read it (as have all those contributing to the site) and can, if you want proof, quote chapter and verse ,to the extent permitted by "fair use". What remains unexplained is how you can presume to judge the quality of research you plainly have not read. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken                                     Date: 13 Nov 2005 23:57:41 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 20:47:23 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: >On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:17:40 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in ><hi8an1lgbkdcp6eqhf1cu4oivri1kdq1sa@4ax.com>: > >>IYes I do. I do projects for businesses in competitive intelligence. >>As you should well know, none of that ever hits the public nor do we >>broadcast who we work for. If you do not know anything about that >>particular field, you can check www.scip.org and any of the UK >>members. You will see them publish on the field of CI, but not the >>corporate studies they have done. > >I have done a lot of work in this area, on contract and employed by >medical and pharmaceutical companies. CI does not compare to the >rigours of original research. Much of it is a low-level data >gathering. Much of it, but not all of it, right? Don't assume that what I do is what you did - low level data gathering. Most research calls for data gathering, doesn't it? It can compare to original research. It depends on the project. >But to answer at least one of your points, there is a copyright >statement: "Unless otherwise stated, the copyright to all material on >this site is owned by the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation. Site >content may be copied and redistributed freely so long as the source >is acknowledged and it is not modified in any way or reproduced out of >context." Correct. The site under question also states that it could not put up any of the other research due to copyright issues. That is a bogus way to skate out on it. >Those materials which are copyrighted and appear on the site, appear >by permission of the individual authors or publishers. A good example >is this: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2017.pdf which is >copyright of John Franklin and CTC, the UK's national cyclists; >organisation. For some reason the publishers of the 1989 Seattle >study are unwilling to grant a copyright release on something for >which they (still) make money on reprints. Especially when the >requester is openly sceptical of its quality. But do be assured that >I have read it (as have all those contributing to the site) and can, >if you want proof, quote chapter and verse ,to the extent permitted by >"fair use". Are they unwilling or is that just some bs? I seriously doubt the veracity of that claim as it is also used to expalin why NO OTHER research to the opposite is included. Not just that one study. >What remains unexplained is how you can presume to judge the quality >of research you plainly have not read. What flys right over your head is that I was commenting about a site as that was the first place I have landed. A site, not anyting lese. Apparently, you are incapable of understanding that. So far, you have failed reading comprehension 101. I have said, at least a dozen times, that the first site was my initial visit and that I would get into the others and the research in due time. Were there any words there you fail to understand? I've been told there are some 900 studies. Obviously, I cannot read them all at one sitting and in .02 nanosecond like you did with 100 percent comprehension. Now, as you have missed this at least a dozen times, let me repeat it one more time for posterity: I have said, at least a dozen times, that the first site was my initial visit and that I would get into the others and the research in due time. Were there any words there you fail to understand? I've been told there are some 900 studies. Obviously, I cannot read them all at one sitting and in .02 nanosecond like you did with 100 percent comprehension. jim                                       Date: 19 Nov 2005 23:36:55 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:57:41 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in <48ggn1lg9os5o2omu1l51589nud3h7l3lf@4ax.com >: >>I have done a lot of work in this area, on contract and employed by >>medical and pharmaceutical companies. CI does not compare to the >>rigours of original research. Much of it is a low-level data >>gathering. >Much of it, but not all of it, right? Don't assume that what I do is >what you did - low level data gathering. Most research calls for data >gathering, doesn't it? It can compare to original research. It depends >on the project. Your paranoia is showing. >>But to answer at least one of your points, there is a copyright >>statement: "Unless otherwise stated, the copyright to all material on >>this site is owned by the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation. Site >>content may be copied and redistributed freely so long as the source >>is acknowledged and it is not modified in any way or reproduced out of >>context." >Correct. The site under question also states that it could not put up >any of the other research due to copyright issues. That is a bogus way >to skate out on it. No, it is absolutely accurate. I can give you copyright dates and holders of the research it does not print in full. Some holders are content to waive or extend copyright, others are not. That's just how it is. If you think it sucks, write to the New England Journal of Medicine and the Cochrane Collaboration and tell them so. >>Those materials which are copyrighted and appear on the site, appear >>by permission of the individual authors or publishers. A good example >>is this: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2017.pdf which is >>copyright of John Franklin and CTC, the UK's national cyclists; >>organisation. For some reason the publishers of the 1989 Seattle >>study are unwilling to grant a copyright release on something for >>which they (still) make money on reprints. Especially when the >>requester is openly sceptical of its quality. But do be assured that >>I have read it (as have all those contributing to the site) and can, >>if you want proof, quote chapter and verse ,to the extent permitted by >>"fair use". >Are they unwilling or is that just some bs? I seriously doubt the >veracity of that claim as it is also used to expalin why NO OTHER >research to the opposite is included. Not just that one study. Of course they are unwilling! They make money from reprints! Jeez, anyone would think you'd never asked a commercial publisher for permission to publish their copyright material on a website or something! >>What remains unexplained is how you can presume to judge the quality >>of research you plainly have not read. >What flys right over your head is that I was commenting about a site >as that was the first place I have landed. A site, not anyting lese. >Apparently, you are incapable of understanding that. I understand perfectly well what you are doing: you are looking for excuses not to believe the conclusions, based on your failure to actually read the evidence. If you'd devoted a tenth of the energy to pursuing the evidence that you've devoted to arguing, you'd be a lot better informed. You also cite BHSI as an authority. That site also fails to print the contents of the studies you want to see, and for the same reason. And that site certainly fails any objectivity test which cyclehelmets.org would fail. > I have said, at least a dozen times, that the first site was my >initial visit and that I would get into the others and the research in >due time. Were there any words there you fail to understand? I've been >told there are some 900 studies. Obviously, I cannot read them all at >one sitting and in .02 nanosecond like you did with 100 percent >comprehension. So here's what you do: go away and read the evidence. Come back then. In the mean time, shut up, because Tony and I know substantially more about the evidence than you do. You haven't even read the evidence which underpins your own position, let alone the opposing one! Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken                                         Date: 25 Nov 2005 14:30:48 From: James Lane Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 23:36:55 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov > wrote: >On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:57:41 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in ><48ggn1lg9os5o2omu1l51589nud3h7l3lf@4ax.com>: > >>>I have done a lot of work in this area, on contract and employed by >>>medical and pharmaceutical companies. CI does not compare to the >>>rigours of original research. Much of it is a low-level data >>>gathering. > >>Much of it, but not all of it, right? Don't assume that what I do is >>what you did - low level data gathering. Most research calls for data >>gathering, doesn't it? It can compare to original research. It depends >>on the project. > >Your paranoia is showing. And your stupidity. If you understood CI and the range of activities that it encompasses, you would realize how dumb the statement was that I replied to. >>>But to answer at least one of your points, there is a copyright >>>statement: "Unless otherwise stated, the copyright to all material on >>>this site is owned by the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation. Site >>>content may be copied and redistributed freely so long as the source >>>is acknowledged and it is not modified in any way or reproduced out of >>>context." > >>Correct. The site under question also states that it could not put up >>any of the other research due to copyright issues. That is a bogus way >>to skate out on it. > >No, it is absolutely accurate. I can give you copyright dates and >holders of the research it does not print in full. Some holders are >content to waive or extend copyright, others are not. That's just how >it is. If you think it sucks, write to the New England Journal of >Medicine and the Cochrane Collaboration and tell them so. More importantly, can you PROVE the site requested copyright permission from those it said it could not get clearance from? Or did they merely say that to keep that information from being available? THAT is the issue. Stay focused. >>>Those materials which are copyrighted and appear on the site, appear >>>by permission of the individual authors or publishers. A good example >>>is this: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2017.pdf which is >>>copyright of John Franklin and CTC, the UK's national cyclists; >>>organisation. For some reason the publishers of the 1989 Seattle >>>study are unwilling to grant a copyright release on something for >>>which they (still) make money on reprints. Especially when the >>>requester is openly sceptical of its quality. But do be assured that >>>I have read it (as have all those contributing to the site) and can, >>>if you want proof, quote chapter and verse ,to the extent permitted by >>>"fair use". > >>Are they unwilling or is that just some bs? I seriously doubt the >>veracity of that claim as it is also used to expalin why NO OTHER >>research to the opposite is included. Not just that one study. > >Of course they are unwilling! They make money from reprints! Jeez, >anyone would think you'd never asked a commercial publisher for >permission to publish their copyright material on a website or >something! Bull. Prove they refused, put up the denial of use. Everyone makes money from reprints, but usually allow fair usage in covering their papers. And at that, it could be paraphrased without permission. >>>What remains unexplained is how you can presume to judge the quality >>>of research you plainly have not read. > >>What flys right over your head is that I was commenting about a site >>as that was the first place I have landed. A site, not anyting lese. >>Apparently, you are incapable of understanding that. > >I understand perfectly well what you are doing: you are looking for >excuses not to believe the conclusions, based on your failure to >actually read the evidence. Wrong, nice ASSumption, but not a fact in sight. I always look at the reporting sources initially to see where they are coming from, are they fair and balanced or one-sided and if the latter, what axes they are grinding. Any, ANY, researcher would the name does that initially. >If you'd devoted a tenth of the energy to pursuing the evidence that >you've devoted to arguing, you'd be a lot better informed. And if you devoted a tenth the energy to not making it necessary for me to repeat myself ad nauseum, I would have more time to do these things. >You also cite BHSI as an authority. That site also fails to print the >contents of the studies you want to see, and for the same reason. And >that site certainly fails any objectivity test which cyclehelmets.org >would fail. I have not cited anyone as an authority. Wishful thinking on your part. I merely said they have a sumy of helmet standards. They do. They also state that CPSC is equivalent to a previous SNELL standard. True or not, I do not know, but will be looking at the actual standards (once I get fully back to this desk). >> I have said, at least a dozen times, that the first site was my >>initial visit and that I would get into the others and the research in >>due time. Were there any words there you fail to understand? I've been >>told there are some 900 studies. Obviously, I cannot read them all at >>one sitting and in .02 nanosecond like you did with 100 percent >>comprehension. > >So here's what you do: go away and read the evidence. Come back then. >In the mean time, shut up, because Tony and I know substantially more >about the evidence than you do. You haven't even read the evidence >which underpins your own position, let alone the opposing one! You might know more, but you cannot pose as anything other than what you are - anti-helmet. You might know more, but your level of research seems to skip right over the basics of examining the reporting source. Pity. Back with you later. jim                                           Date: 26 Nov 2005 10:41:00 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:30:48 -0800, James Lane <ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com > said in <sd3fo1li1veseobsrgfm46s6gledahtmqa@4ax.com >: >>Your paranoia is showing. >And your stupidity. If you understood CI and the range of activities >that it encompasses, you would realize how dumb the statement was that >I replied to. Your paranoia is showing. What I said was that a lot (i.e. not all) of CI is simply low-level data gathering. Of the type which you failed to do in the case of this debate, funnily enough. >>>The site under question also states that it could not put up >>>any of the other research due to copyright issues. That is a bogus way >>>to skate out on it. >>No, it is absolutely accurate. I can give you copyright dates and >>holders of the research it does not print in full. Some holders are >>content to waive or extend copyright, others are not. That's just how >>it is. If you think it sucks, write to the New England Journal of >>Medicine and the Cochrane Collaboration and tell them so. >More importantly, can you PROVE the site requested copyright >permission from those it said it could not get clearance from? Or did >they merely say that to keep that information from being available? >THAT is the issue. Stay focused. See if you can find the full text of those reports /anywhere/ on the web, including at helmet advocacy sites like BHSI. Or do you denounce every site discussing this issue as lacking credibility because none of them include full text of the reports? >>>Are they unwilling or is that just some bs? I seriously doubt the >>>veracity of that claim as it is also used to expalin why NO OTHER >>>research to the opposite is included. Not just that one study. >>Of course they are unwilling! They make money from reprints! Jeez, >>anyone would think you'd never asked a commercial publisher for >>permission to publish their copyright material on a website or >>something! >Bull. Prove they refused, put up the denial of use. Everyone makes >money from reprints, but usually allow fair usage in covering their >papers. And at that, it could be paraphrased without permission. Don't be an idiot. Why on earth should it be necessary to "prove" that a copyright holder has withheld permission to freely distribute copyrighted material? Your contention is absurd. Very few, if any, academic journals grant free access to their contents. Like I say, see if you can find the full text /anywhere/ on the web. >>I understand perfectly well what you are doing: you are looking for >>excuses not to believe the conclusions, based on your failure to >>actually read the evidence. >Wrong, nice ASSumption, but not a fact in sight. I always look at the >reporting sources initially to see where they are coming from, are >they fair and balanced or one-sided and if the latter, what axes they >are grinding. Any, ANY, researcher would the name does that initially. Ah, so when you read the 1989 Seattle study, what did you make of the differences between the study populations in tables 3, 4 and 5? >>If you'd devoted a tenth of the energy to pursuing the evidence that >>you've devoted to arguing, you'd be a lot better informed. >And if you devoted a tenth the energy to not making it necessary for >me to repeat myself ad nauseum, I would have more time to do these >things. Ridiculous. Nobody asked you to come along and debate from ignorance. The fact that it took several exchanges before you acknowledged that you are woefully uninformed is a point against you, not me! >>You also cite BHSI as an authority. That site also fails to print the >>contents of the studies you want to see, and for the same reason. And >>that site certainly fails any objectivity test which cyclehelmets.org >>would fail. >I have not cited anyone as an authority. Wishful thinking on your >part. I merely said they have a sumy of helmet standards. They do. >They also state that CPSC is equivalent to a previous SNELL standard. >True or not, I do not know, but will be looking at the actual >standards (once I get fully back to this desk). So, you cited them as an authority, then, as stated. And as it happens, they are wrong, contradicted by Snell ("However, those helmets passing Snell's B-95 or N-94 standard will automatically qualify because Snell's standards exceed CPSC's", from the Snell Memorial Foundation website) and also contradicted by a reading of the standards. You have read them and compared them, haven't you? Also, as stated, CPSC is self-certified with no external validation, whereas Snell is serial numbered, externally validated and lot-traceable. >>So here's what you do: go away and read the evidence. Come back then. >>In the mean time, shut up, because Tony and I know substantially more >>about the evidence than you do. You haven't even read the evidence >>which underpins your own position, let alone the opposing one! >You might know more, but you cannot pose as anything other than what >you are - anti-helmet. You might know more, but your level of research >seems to skip right over the basics of examining the reporting source. So you keep saying. That statement is at odds with the documented evidence, per my website, which has several pictures of me wearing my magic foam hat. In fact, the allegation of being "anti-helmet" is probably the single most common strawman used by zealots to try to attack sceptics. What I am is a sceptic. I am not campaigning for laws to ban helmet use, in the way that zealots campaign for laws to mandate them. I have read the evidence on both sides and find that, on balance, there is as much evidence indicating no effect as there is indicating effect, and that the pro-helmet evidence is invariably of a type well known to be vulnerable to confounding, often wrong and sometimes very badly wrong. All this is documented. You don't appear to have done stage 1 of the basic research yet. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken                                           Date: 25 Nov 2005 22:45:59 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted James Lane wrote: > > I have not cited anyone as an authority. Wishful thinking on your > part. I merely said they have a sumy of helmet standards. They do. > They also state that CPSC is equivalent to a previous SNELL > standard. True or not, I do not know, but will be looking at the > actual standards (once I get fully back to this desk). > "However, those helmets passing Snell's B-95 or N-94 standard will automatically qualify because Snell's standards exceed CPSC's" Source: Snell Memorial Foundation http://www.smf.org/articles/bcomp.html -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham                                   Date: 12 Nov 2005 09:01:10 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > > IYes I do. I do projects for businesses in competitive intelligence. > As you should well know, none of that ever hits the public nor do we > broadcast who we work for. If you do not know anything about that > particular field, you can check www.scip.org and any of the UK > members. You will see them publish on the field of CI, but not the > corporate studies they have done. > That explains a lot. Collecting business competitor intelligence is not good training for analysing or reviewing scientific research. I have employed a number of people doing what you do over the years and its methodologies just don't apply. It explains why lack of copyright bothers you more than lack of rigorous research methodology. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham                                     Date: 14 Nov 2005 00:01:38 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 09:01:10 +0000, Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >> >> IYes I do. I do projects for businesses in competitive intelligence. >> As you should well know, none of that ever hits the public nor do we >> broadcast who we work for. If you do not know anything about that >> particular field, you can check www.scip.org and any of the UK >> members. You will see them publish on the field of CI, but not the >> corporate studies they have done. >> > >That explains a lot. Collecting business competitor intelligence is not >good training for analysing or reviewing scientific research. I have >employed a number of people doing what you do over the years and its >methodologies just don't apply. > >It explains why lack of copyright bothers you more than lack of rigorous >research methodology. And what you fail to understand is that if there is a problem with those issues mentioned, then the entire site is suspect, especially when what they present is skewed one way simply because of copyright. Do not assume that CI is my complete background. It is not. I have been involved in research of the nature you describe since 1967. SInce 1992 or so, I moved into CI. You are driving the wrong end of the ass in this case. jim                                 Date: 06 Nov 2005 19:35:24 From: DD Subject: Re: advisor wanted Tony Raven wrote: > ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >> >> Regardless of your credentials, the items I pointed out evidently slid >> right past you. > > Do you have any research credentials? Or is that claim just another > part of your bluster? So come on, put up or is anonymity the only way > you can maintain the charade? > >etc, etc. Some time ago I started this thread asking for help with a problem about being sun-blinded at critical times of the day. I received back some useful replies. However since then my unfortunate use of the word 'helmet' has been latched onto with ferocity and the replies since then have been like viewing a pack of sharks in a feeding frenzy. We are getting down to the point where no one wins and everyone needs a hug. Gah! No one reply is going to change the world regarding opinion on helmet usage. Nor is a tonne of replies fired back and forth. It all steeps up into a fetid pile and to other ARBR browsers I think is now starting to smell just like manure. So how about we end it now and before any troll comes along attracted by the odour. Thanks for your replies and contributions to an interesting debate and to my original query also.                                   Date: 06 Nov 2005 17:06:26 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 19:35:24 +0800, DD <me@u.com > said in <436dea7e$0$30996$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au >: >Some time ago I started this thread asking for help with a problem about >being sun-blinded at critical times of the day. And boy are you ever sorry you asked :-D Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken               Date: 02 Nov 2005 21:43:21 From: Bertie Wiggins Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:49:31 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >NON-SERIOUS injury data has not >been reported nor included in the study. I think that most people accept that helmets can protect against minor cuts and abrasions. The moot point is over serious injury: do they cause more than they save? Evidence suggests they have little effect. And do the heath benefits of high rates of unhelmeted cycling outweigh the health benefits of low rates of helmeted cycling? I wonder if the Dutch have a lower rate of heart disease than the peoples of Belgium.                 Date: 02 Nov 2005 22:39:53 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:43:21 +0000, Bertie Wiggins <cycling_remove_bertie@yahoo_dot_co_dot_uk > wrote: >On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:49:31 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >>NON-SERIOUS injury data has not >>been reported nor included in the study. > >I think that most people accept that helmets can protect against minor >cuts and abrasions. The moot point is over serious injury: do they >cause more than they save? Evidence suggests they have little effect. >And do the heath benefits of high rates of unhelmeted cycling outweigh >the health benefits of low rates of helmeted cycling? I wonder if the >Dutch have a lower rate of heart disease than the peoples of Belgium. I have not argued with any data about serious injury. The problem is the anti-helmet bigos cannot accept that they might help in non-serious injuries because that alone would undermine their position. I cauion about using one category of data to make categorical predictions about another that appears to be related, but may not be. jim                   Date: 03 Nov 2005 08:37:20 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > > I have not argued with any data about serious injury. The problem is > the anti-helmet bigos cannot accept that they might help in > non-serious injuries because that alone would undermine their > position. > At last. And most of us think that non-serious injuries can be equally avoided if you are worried by wearing a cycling cap or similar for the very rare occasions on which they do occur. And if not they are not serious anyway. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham                   Date: 03 Nov 2005 07:01:23 From: Bertie Wiggins Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:39:53 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >I have not argued with any data about serious injury Good! >The problem is >the anti-helmet bigos cannot accept that they might help in >non-serious injuries because that alone would undermine their >position. I think we all know that helmets can protect against minor cuts and abrasions - wearing gloves are likely to do more to protect against minor cuts and abrasions as in the event of a fall the natural instinct is to use your hands to break your fall. So why aren't gloves being promoted with, at least, equal vigour?                     Date: 04 Nov 2005 22:25:39 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 07:01:23 +0000, Bertie Wiggins <cycling_remove_bertie@yahoo_dot_co_dot_uk > wrote: >On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:39:53 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >>I have not argued with any data about serious injury > >Good! > >>The problem is >>the anti-helmet bigos cannot accept that they might help in >>non-serious injuries because that alone would undermine their >>position. > >I think we all know that helmets can protect against minor cuts and >abrasions - wearing gloves are likely to do more to protect against >minor cuts and abrasions as in the event of a fall the natural >instinct is to use your hands to break your fall. So why aren't >gloves being promoted with, at least, equal vigour? Probably because anyone who rides seriously wears them automatically. Have a flat, easier to take a tire off the rim with them. Chain suck, easier to handle the dirty chain with them. jim                       Date: 06 Nov 2005 17:52:40 From: Bertie Wiggins Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 22:25:39 -0800, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >>I think we all know that helmets can protect against minor cuts and >>abrasions - wearing gloves are likely to do more to protect against >>minor cuts and abrasions as in the event of a fall the natural >>instinct is to use your hands to break your fall. So why aren't >>gloves being promoted with, at least, equal vigour? > > >Probably because anyone who rides seriously wears them automatically. >Have a flat, easier to take a tire off the rim with them. Chain suck, >easier to handle the dirty chain with them. But the group most targeted for helmets are children - yet you rarely see child cyclists wearing gloves except in cold weather, and I've never seen them promoted as safety equipment.                 Date: 02 Nov 2005 22:19:46 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:43:21 +0000, Bertie Wiggins <cycling_remove_bertie@yahoo_dot_co_dot_uk > said in <sacim19lk8p1bjvrue445okigoj6q1kdsh@4ax.com >: > I wonder if the >Dutch have a lower rate of heart disease than the peoples of Belgium As I recall they have the lowest levels of coronary heart disease in Europe, but that might be wrong. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken     Date: 01 Nov 2005 00:19:50 From: Bertie Wiggins Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:45:04 -0800, ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com wrote: >There is another set of factors operating here that all this ignores and >that is most European countries are cyclist friendly. I do not know about >Australia, but the US is not cyclist friendly. I've had seveal encounters >where I've had drivers deliberately squueze me to the side of the road and >hazards there while yelling that I should get off the road and on the >sidewalk. Even had someone tell me they hoped some driver would run over >me. A helmet protects against unfriendly motorists in what way exactly?   Date: 31 Oct 2005 15:42:27 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted In <1130678600.803384.216310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >, on 10/30/05 at 05:23 AM, "rBOB" <bobish@gmail.com > said: >>>Again, you are using apples to make statements about oranges and are clueless that you are doing it. >I'm agnostic on this issue and generally stay out of these discussions >but I wish you would stop writing this over and over. It is perfectly >legitimate to ask: Why has society deemed it appropriate / necessary / >mandatory to wear a helmet while cycling but not while walking, driving, >running, descending staircases, etc, etc...)? Appples and oranges. If you can not see that, then there is no point saying anything else. jim -- ----------------------------------------------------------- ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com -----------------------------------------------------------     Date: 31 Oct 2005 23:49:07 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:42:27 -0800, ensenadajimXXX@yahoo.com said in <4366ac10$1$rafranqnwvzkkk$mr2ice@news.nethere.net >: >Appples and oranges. If you can not see that, then there is no point >saying anything else. Yes, apples and oranges. Cyclists who choose to wear helmets and ride in family groups on bike trails, versus those who do not and ride alone on city streets. Apples and oranges. Only an idiot would fail to see the difference. And only a zealot would attribute it to the headgear rather than the riding style. Interestingly, where the helmet usage rate rises by very large amounts in a very short time (such as in New Zealand, where it doubled in a single year) there is no discernible change in recorded head injury rates. Obviously someone forgot to tell all those apples to become oranges... Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken   Date: 30 Oct 2005 06:40:13 From: Butch Subject: Re: advisor wanted Hi Peter, Sorry for the delay in response but the weather is so great I have been out riding. I am sorry if I upset you so much, I suspect you must be quite young to be so naive. You don't seem to get the point that when a helmet works the accident is not major and is not reported. For your information in our country Health care is so expensive that most people seldom go to ER. In fact belive it or not the fellow that broke his leg in two places not only did not go to the ER but finished the ride another 40 miles on the broken leg (he had no insurance). It was only days later when he could not walk that a friend and xray tech snuck him into a clinic after hours and xrayed the leg. The man who landed on his head was taken in an ambulance, I seriously doubt if anyone at the hospital took any data. I am 62 years old and have a wife and 34 year old son, together we have been to the ER 7 times and 2 of those were for the pregnancy and two for appendix. Where I live if you call an ambulance you get a bill for $462.00 and we are less than 2 miles from the hospital. In my opinion as a retired engineer the medical industry has the poorest form of statistical data of anyone. For example my Mom got a mitral valve replacement aprox. 20 years ago, she was one of the first to get a valve made from the muscle of a pig. Her doctor took me aside and said, he was sorry they had to use that valve because they could not get the mechanical model to fit. He said no way she would live 7 years. She went back to the Dr 18 months later it was fine, 5 years later the Dr wanted her to come back in for more tests, she refused because it was to far and she had no transportation, the Dr sent an ambulance to the house and did the tests. Sounds great huh, but 17 years after the valve replacement she died, from other causes, I called the Dr and asked if he wanted the heart to examine, he said no he had written his paper and was no longer interested. I talk to cancer patients often they say that the Dr's are only interested in what happens for 5 years after that they don't seem to care. As for your comments about pedestrian injuries/ deaths in the UK, I believe you, I have been to London several times you drive on the wrong side of the road and even have written on the curbs LOOK RIGHT trying to warn the rest of the world that the crazy Brits are coming from the wrong side.haha That ought to keep you going for a week. I am going out and enjoy another perfect day. Happy Trails Butch     Date: 31 Oct 2005 23:43:22 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On 30 Oct 2005 06:40:13 -0800, "Butch" <Butchdz@yahoo.com > said in <1130683213.937687.248260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >: >Hi Peter, Sorry for the delay in response but the weather is so great >I have been out riding. I am sorry if I upset you so much, I suspect >you must be quite young to be so naive. You don't seem to get the >point that when a helmet works the accident is not major and is not >reported. And you don't seem to get the point that there is no known case where cyclist injuries have reduced with increasing helmet use (but plenty which show the opposite). I am neither young nor naive. I have also read most of the research, both ways. If you'd like to cite the study on which you base your opinion? Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken     Date: 30 Oct 2005 18:44:49 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted Butch wrote: > Hi Peter, Sorry for the delay in response but the weather is so great > I have been out riding. I am sorry if I upset you so much, I suspect > you must be quite young to be so naive. You didn't upset me, you were just being wrong. I'm 39 btw. > You don't seem to get the > point that when a helmet works the accident is not major and is not > reported. And therefore that should contribute to a fall in serious head injuries as helmet wearing rates increase. But no such thing happens, so it looks like the supposition you've made is flawed. > For your information in our country Health care is so > expensive that most people seldom go to ER. But this will still lead to reported serious accidents falling /if/ the helmets are reducing the need to get to ER. But is doesn't. > The man who landed on his head was taken in an ambulance, I seriously > doubt if anyone at the hospital took any data. You think they don't record admissions? So where does all the data there is come from? As I suggested to Jim, "Show me the casualty savings!" What you've said above in no way prevents effective helmets changuing the numbers, but the numbers don't change. You complained about how dubious relying on statistics is, yet you've chosen to use a tiny sample base in your /own/ statistics, so your own statistics are clearly flawed. Yet you choose to use them rather than much sounder data sets with usable sample bases. If you don't like statistics because they can be misused, stop using bad data yourself. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/     Date: 30 Oct 2005 16:25:02 From: Colin McKenzie Subject: Re: advisor wanted Lest anyone think Peter is a lone voice... Butch wrote: > Hi Peter, Sorry for the delay in response but the weather is so great > I have been out riding. I am sorry if I upset you so much, I suspect > you must be quite young to be so naive. You don't seem to get the > point that when a helmet works the accident is not major and is not > reported. Which should mean, if they work, that reported injury rates go down as more people wear them. Whereas what we find is that the trend for cyclists is the same as for pedestrians regardless of changes in cyclists' helmet-wearing rate. > For your information in our country Health care is so > expensive that most people seldom go to ER. Luckily Peter is quoting UK stats, where people go to Casualty (ER) for any injury they haven't got a plaster to fit. Among other things, these stats show walking and cycling to be about equally hazardous, and to vary the same way over time - despite cycle helmet wearing rates increasing from 0 to about half of cyclists in the last 20 years. One of the reasons people perceive cycling to be dangerous is the relentless propaganda saying it is, from those promoting helmets. Wear a helmet, if you wish, to prevent those small injuries you're not going to go to the ER for. But forget about it saving your life. Colin McKenzie -- The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!       Date: 30 Oct 2005 17:48:23 From: Bertie Wiggins Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:25:02 +0000, Colin McKenzie <news@proof-read.co.uk > wrote: >Lest anyone think Peter is a lone voice... > >Butch wrote: >> Hi Peter, Sorry for the delay in response but the weather is so great >> I have been out riding. I am sorry if I upset you so much, I suspect >> you must be quite young to be so naive. You don't seem to get the >> point that when a helmet works the accident is not major and is not >> reported. > >Which should mean, if they work, that reported injury rates go down as >more people wear them. Whereas what we find is that the trend for >cyclists is the same as for pedestrians regardless of changes in >cyclists' helmet-wearing rate. > >> For your information in our country Health care is so >> expensive that most people seldom go to ER. > >Luckily Peter is quoting UK stats, where people go to Casualty (ER) >for any injury they haven't got a plaster to fit. Among other things, >these stats show walking and cycling to be about equally hazardous, >and to vary the same way over time - despite cycle helmet wearing >rates increasing from 0 to about half of cyclists in the last 20 years. > >One of the reasons people perceive cycling to be dangerous is the >relentless propaganda saying it is, from those promoting helmets. > >Wear a helmet, if you wish, to prevent those small injuries you're not >going to go to the ER for. But forget about it saving your life. It is worth noting that Holland has a high proportion of its population using bikes, a very low proportion of its cyclists wearing helmets and a low head injury rate among cyclists. http://home.comcast.net/~steveheadley1/biketowork.jpg   Date: 30 Oct 2005 05:23:20 From: rBOB Subject: Re: advisor wanted >>Again, you are using apples to make statements about oranges and are clueless that you are doing it. I'm agnostic on this issue and generally stay out of these discussions but I wish you would stop writing this over and over. It is perfectly legitimate to ask: Why has society deemed it appropriate / necessary / mandatory to wear a helmet while cycling but not while walking, driving, running, descending staircases, etc, etc...)?     Date: 30 Oct 2005 07:19:29 From: Rich Subject: Re: advisor wanted rBOB wrote: > It is perfectly > legitimate to ask: Why has society deemed it appropriate / necessary / > mandatory to wear a helmet while cycling but not while walking, > driving, running, descending staircases, etc, etc...)? Possible answers: We're moving much slower while walking We have seatbelts and airbags for driving We also moving slower runnning then biking We have banisters to hold onto while descending staircases The U.S. is a safety consious country when it comes to personal activities. Right or wrong, helments are the safety item of choice for any activity involving moving at a speed greater then running (roller skating, skateboards, skiiing, etc..). It's an easy sell. Rich       Date: 31 Oct 2005 23:40:02 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 07:19:29 -0700, Rich <richa_colorado@yahoo.com > said in <11m9ln799pjfsaa@corp.supernews.com >: >Possible answers: >We're moving much slower while walking >We have seatbelts and airbags for driving >We also moving slower runnning then biking >We have banisters to hold onto while descending staircases Interesting, then, how the proportion of head injuries for hospitalised pedestrians and cyclists turns out to be almost exactly the same (30.0% for cyclists, 30.1% for peds). And the dominant cause of those injuries turns out to be something which vastly exceeds the protective capacity of any available helmet, namely impact with motor vehicles. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken       Date: 30 Oct 2005 17:23:15 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted Rich wrote: > rBOB wrote: > >> It is perfectly >> legitimate to ask: Why has society deemed it appropriate / necessary / >> mandatory to wear a helmet while cycling but not while walking, >> driving, running, descending staircases, etc, etc...)? > > Possible answers: > We're moving much slower while walking > We have seatbelts and airbags for driving > We also moving slower runnning then biking > We have banisters to hold onto while descending staircases > > The U.S. is a safety consious country when it comes to personal > activities. Right or wrong, helments are the safety item of choice for > any activity involving moving at a speed greater then running (roller > skating, skateboards, skiiing, etc..). It's an easy sell. > Which is curious seeing as cycling helmets are not designed or certified for speeds higher than running. If your assertion was right then the manufacturers would surely be designing for and claiming protection for higher than running speeds but they don't. In addition to which the risk of head injuries from trips, falls etc while walking is just the same as the risk of head injuries while cycling. Since many many more people walk and more often, why are they not the priy target for helmets? Cycling is a very safe activity compared to all the other risks people take in their daily lives but for some reason people want to portray it as so uniquely dangerous that it requires special protective equipment. And guess what? The number one reason people give for not cycling is its dangerous. I wonder where they got that idea from? -- Tony "I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't" Anon   Date: 30 Oct 2005 04:33:11 From: rBOB Subject: Re: advisor wanted >>>I have a few pictures of my LIGHT PURPLE Earth Cycles Sunset Lowracer [TM] that I could post, but no convenient place to post them. Good advice from others on the photos. If you don't want to open new accounts, the easiest way to post the odd photo or two on the web (IMO) is http://tinypic.com/ You don't need to register or do anything special--just upload it from your desktop.     Date: 30 Oct 2005 22:07:42 From: Michael J. Klein Subject: Re: advisor wanted rBOB wrote: >>>>I have a few pictures of my LIGHT PURPLE Earth Cycles Sunset Lowracer [TM] that I could post, but no convenient place to post them. > > > Good advice from others on the photos. If you don't want to open new > accounts, the easiest way to post the odd photo or two on the web (IMO) > is http://tinypic.com/ > > You don't need to register or do anything special--just upload it from > your desktop. > also, imageshack.us is an excellent free image hosting service. -- Michael J. Klein & Asian Castings Consortium mklein@mousepotato.com Yangmei Jen (Hukou), Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC Please replace mousepotato with asiancastings Mozilla Thunderbird   Date: 28 Oct 2005 21:47:21 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: advisor wanted Peter Clinch, Medical Physics IT Officer, wrote: > Butch wrote: > > > For Mr. Peter Clinch, I wish you the best in your riding, but using a > > Helmet is a lot like smoking you don't need an expert or statistics to > > show you what to do only common sense. > > Then why doesn't the "common sense" factor into any improvement > whatsoever in serious injury rates anywhere helmet wearing rates > increase? It's common sense that that would surely happen if they > improved matters, but they have a track record of doing *nothing*. > > > To put > > it in simple terms "Shit Happens", its your life, you know what it is > > worth. > > It certainly does. And it continues to happen wearing helmets, and > there is no national population anywhere who have shown an improvement > in their serious head injury rate from wearing cycle helmets. Speaking of shit and h*lm*ts, a h*lm*t with no vents could be a life saver: <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/ae7f8b09b374d758?dmode=source&hl=en >. ;) -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley "Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels   Date: 28 Oct 2005 21:37:14 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: advisor wanted k Leuck wrote: > "DD" <me@u.com> wrote in message > news:4360cff4$0$8626$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au... > > So what set up do you use or suggest for helmets and visors with > > recumbents. At the wrong time of day it can be a bit glaring riding the > > couch trike towards the sunny side of town. Most bike helmets are made > > for road and MTB, a different posture from that of the laid back crowd. > > The problem is more acute on my lowracer and it is impractical to ride > > in the early hours of the morning mostly one-handed, the other shielding > > the eyes from the sun. What fixes or good helmets do you recommend? > > > > (and if Mr Sunset Lowracer pipes up to explain that he only got his name > > because at sunset he only rides his lowracer away from the sun that > > ain't what I mean). Thanks for any advice on visors and whatnot. > > Mr Sunset Lowracer got his name from a low racer made by a now dead company, > you don't want to egg him on about it or he'll post that one picture over > and over again > > Which reminds me, hey Tom don't you have any OTHER pictures of that bike? I have a few pictures of my LIGHT PURPLE Earth Cycles Sunset Lowracer [TM] that I could post, but no convenient place to post them. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley "Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels     Date: 29 Oct 2005 12:50:25 From: Rich Subject: Re: advisor wanted Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote: > I have a few pictures of my LIGHT PURPLE Earth Cycles Sunset Lowracer > [TM] that I could post, but no convenient place to post them. www.flickr.com is free site on which you can post photos. Also very easy to use.     Date: 29 Oct 2005 09:17:11 From: Mark Leuck Subject: Re: advisor wanted "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1130560634.049416.123990@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > k Leuck wrote: > > "DD" <me@u.com> wrote in message > > news:4360cff4$0$8626$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au... > > > So what set up do you use or suggest for helmets and visors with > > > recumbents. At the wrong time of day it can be a bit glaring riding the > > > couch trike towards the sunny side of town. Most bike helmets are made > > > for road and MTB, a different posture from that of the laid back crowd. > > > The problem is more acute on my lowracer and it is impractical to ride > > > in the early hours of the morning mostly one-handed, the other shielding > > > the eyes from the sun. What fixes or good helmets do you recommend? > > > > > > (and if Mr Sunset Lowracer pipes up to explain that he only got his name > > > because at sunset he only rides his lowracer away from the sun that > > > ain't what I mean). Thanks for any advice on visors and whatnot. > > > > Mr Sunset Lowracer got his name from a low racer made by a now dead company, > > you don't want to egg him on about it or he'll post that one picture over > > and over again > > > > Which reminds me, hey Tom don't you have any OTHER pictures of that bike? > > I have a few pictures of my LIGHT PURPLE Earth Cycles Sunset Lowracer > [TM] that I could post, but no convenient place to post them. > > -- > Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley > "Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels You could create a blog on Blogger and use a program called Hello to upload images, it's all free [1] [1] With some advertising somewhere I'm sure       Date: 03 Nov 2005 18:27:28 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Tin Foil Hats (was: advisor wanted) ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > On 2 Nov 2005 19:42:54 -0800, "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" > <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >> ... > >> My question stands: did they survey all those riders who reduced their > >> riding and ask them "why?" If they did not, there may be an > >> intervening variable.... > > > >alien mind control! > > > Ooops, better get out my TV antenna and tinfoil hat! See <http://eclectech.co.uk/mindcontrol.php >. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley   Date: 28 Oct 2005 17:36:44 From: Butch Subject: Re: advisor wanted Ah yes statistics! I worked as an engineer for more than 30 years and I can tell you what we used to say about statistics. Figures lie and liars figure. Meaning of course that statistics are great if the data is great but that almost never happens. No one ever took data when my friend flipped his Gold Rush, no one ever got data when I fell in front of the VREX and no one took data when I watched an older man riding a diamond frame pull his handle bars off the bike and split his skull(no helmet). You're right many people get hurt in many ways, I just spent $45.00 for two bath mats (and I am cheap) cause I know how easy it is to fall in a bath tub or shower and I also know how easy it is to fall on a bike or recumbent, (I have seen a top rated trike flip as well), that is why I wear a helmet, I don't care what you do but I do care when you try to give a novice cyclist misguided advice. I know helmets are not perfect, but in my opinion they are a lot better than nothing. Oh yes now I remember another time when I think my helmet saved me from injury, I fell when I was crossing a slippery section of black top (in humid weather here it sometimes collects some sort of slimy allgae or what ever) I slid for a long time fortunately my fairing took much of the skid my head first went up and I remember trying to stop it from coming down so I wouldn't hit the pavement, I could not do it, I did tuck my chin just a bit and hit the side of the helmet cracking it slightly. I lost a lot of skin and rode the rest of the way home with my bloody butt hanging out but I didn't hurt my head. Funny I couldn't find a single statistical data taker on the entire 46 mile trail that day. I can tell you one thing its to late to put it on when you are sliding down that black top at 18 mph. Happy Trails Butch     Date: 29 Oct 2005 12:43:01 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted Butch wrote: > Ah yes statistics! I worked as an engineer for more than 30 years > and I can tell you what we used to say about statistics. Figures lie > and liars figure. Meaning of course that statistics are great if the > data is great but that almost never happens. The data is there for all to see, so look at it yourself. The data that really sucks is the data that tells us how effective helmets are with figures like 85% effective... gathered from comparaing affluent kids riding in parks to poor kids on busy city streets and assuming all the difference comes from helmets! > No one ever took data > when my friend flipped his Gold Rush, no one ever got data when I fell > in front of the VREX and no one took data when I watched an older man > riding a diamond frame pull his handle bars off the bike and split his > skull(no helmet). So the guy that split his skull just went home and didn't report it to anyone? Or he was jsut left at the roadside? Unlikely in the extreme, so I think people /did/ take some data. > as well), that is why I wear a helmet, I don't care what you do but I > do care when you try to give a novice cyclist misguided advice. But it isn't "misguided advice", it is reporting the simple truth that population data does not show any noticable improvement in head injury rates with increased helmet wearing. That that *fact* runs counter to "common sense" doesn't make it wrong. I know where you're coming from, because it's exactly where I was coming from until about 3 or 4 years ago. I always wore a helmet on pretty much every cycle journey I made for over a decade, thinking it daft not to and irresponsible not to recommend them to others based on the assumption that they *must* make you safer. But responding to the same sort of points I'm making now, I figured if they really /do/ help it should be easy to demonstrate that, but the harder I've looked the more the case that they help has shown to be the sort of badly skewed research and statistical shenanigans I'm being accused of myself here, and the more the case that they really don't make any significant difference has stayed as a simple fact. > I know > helmets are not perfect, but in my opinion they are a lot better than > nothing. So where is the data to show that? Beyond a couple of personal anecdotes with no control data. There is a lot of data about accident rates and helmet wearing rates, so it should be easy to find a demonstration of effectiveness if they are effective. I looked but I couldn't find it, I stopped wearing a helmet. If you can find something convincing I'll gladly go back to wearing it as I don't want to risk my life, but AFAICT I'm not at the moment, so I'll vote for comfort on every ride. > Oh yes now I remember another time when I think my helmet > saved me from injury, I fell when I was crossing a slippery section of > black top (in humid weather here it sometimes collects some sort of > slimy allgae or what ever) I slid for a long time fortunately my > fairing took much of the skid my head first went up and I remember > trying to stop it from coming down so I wouldn't hit the pavement, I > could not do it, I did tuck my chin just a bit and hit the side of the > helmet cracking it slightly. Of course, your head is both bigger and heavier when wearing a helmet, so you're much more likely to hit it in such an accident, and if you do hit it there'll be more leverage applied to your neck. None of those are Good Things. > I lost a lot of skin and rode the rest of > the way home with my bloody butt hanging out but I didn't hurt my head. > Funny I couldn't find a single statistical data taker on the entire 46 > mile trail that day. But your lack of appearance in ER will have gone towards an overall fall in injuries. So either everyone having these accidents is being balanced by ones where helmets make things worse, or you wouldn't have gone to ER anyway. > I can tell you one thing its to late to put it on > when you are sliding down that black top at 18 mph. And it's also too late to take it off if the extra size and weight make a difference to hitting your head at all... The simple fact reamins, increasing helmet wearing rates have not affected the serious head injury rates. I have asked myself how that can be so if helmets are as effective as is often made out, but cannot reconcile the two. The raw data is there for anyone to play with, and the analyses that tend to stand up are the ones that show nothing improves for serious injuries with helmets. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/       Date: 29 Oct 2005 20:41:22 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:43:01 +0100, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: snip >But it isn't "misguided advice", it is reporting the simple truth >that population data does not show any noticable improvement in >head injury rates with increased helmet wearing. That that *fact* >runs counter to "common sense" doesn't make it wrong. It is misguided because it concerns only "serious" accidents and I'm betting you agree that far more less than "serious" accidents happen than serious. Where are the stats for those, the ones that without a helmet might have called for an ER visit and stitching? Put -'em up if you gottem, but I'm lookin' forward to your sounds of silence. >I know where you're coming from, because it's exactly where I was >coming from until about 3 or 4 years ago. I always wore a helmet >on pretty much every cycle journey I made for over a decade, >thinking it daft not to and irresponsible not to recommend them to >others based on the assumption that they *must* make you safer. >But responding to the same sort of points I'm making now, I figured >if they really /do/ help it should be easy to demonstrate that, but >the harder I've looked the more the case that they help has shown >to be the sort of badly skewed research and statistical shenanigans >I'm being accused of myself here, and the more the case that they >really don't make any significant difference has stayed as a simple >fact. > >> I know >> helmets are not perfect, but in my opinion they are a lot better than >> nothing. > >So where is the data to show that? Beyond a couple of personal >anecdotes with no control data. Where is your data on non-serious injuries? Without any on your part, anecdotal evidence is better than your lack of information. >There is a lot of data about accident rates and helmet wearing >rates, so it should be easy to find a demonstration of >effectiveness if they are effective. I looked but I couldn't find >it, I stopped wearing a helmet. If you can find something >convincing I'll gladly go back to wearing it as I don't want to >risk my life, but AFAICT I'm not at the moment, so I'll vote for >comfort on every ride. Well, if it is that easy, why haven't you done it? >But your lack of appearance in ER will have gone towards an overall >fall in injuries. So either everyone having these accidents is >being balanced by ones where helmets make things worse, or you >wouldn't have gone to ER anyway. Really, how do you propose that be measured? They only measure srious injuries and have no data at all on those that walk away without a report being filed. >The simple fact reamins, increasing helmet wearing rates have not >affected the serious head injury rates. I have asked myself how >that can be so if helmets are as effective as is often made out, >but cannot reconcile the two. The raw data is there for anyone to >play with, and the analyses that tend to stand up are the ones that >show nothing improves for serious injuries with helmets. Again, you are using apples to make statements about oranges and are clueless that you are doing it. jim         Date: 30 Oct 2005 17:08:33 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:43:01 +0100, Peter Clinch > <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > > >> But it isn't "misguided advice", it is reporting the simple truth >> that population data does not show any noticable improvement in >> head injury rates with increased helmet wearing. That that *fact* >> runs counter to "common sense" doesn't make it wrong. > > It is misguided because it concerns only "serious" accidents and I'm > betting you agree that far more less than "serious" accidents happen > than serious. Where are the stats for those, the ones that without a > helmet might have called for an ER visit and stitching? > > Put -'em up if you gottem, but I'm lookin' forward to your sounds of > silence. > I'll put them up for Pete if I may. Do you know the definitions of a "serious" injury? In most countries your "ER visit and stitching" would be counted as serious in the official definitions. In the US, in 1991 18% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 568,000 cyclist accidents requiring hospital treatment. 12% were head injuries. By 2000, 30% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 627,160 cyclist accidents. 12% were head injuries. So whatever all those extra helmets were doing they were not reducing head injuries. In the UK the proportion of female under-16 cyclists wearing helmets is double that of males. The proportion female under 16 cyclists suffering head injuries is virtually identical to that of males. So whatever all those extra helmets are doing for the girls, they are not protecting them from head injuries. The country with the lowest head injury rate for cyclists is Holland. They also have the lowest helmet wearing rate in the developed world at 0.1%. Curiously the USA is the reverse with six times the death rate per km cycled and a 38% helmet wearing rate. In Australia where helmets are mandatory and enforced, one state has repealed the helmet law. That state now has the highest cycling rate and lowest head injury rate in Australia. Starting to see a pattern? Whatever common sense is telling you about the protective effect of helmets, experience around the world says its wrong. -- Tony "I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't" Anon           Date: 30 Oct 2005 10:12:17 From: Rich Subject: Re: advisor wanted Tony Raven wrote: > In the US, in 1991 18% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 568,000 > cyclist accidents requiring hospital treatment. 12% were head injuries. > By 2000, 30% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 627,160 cyclist > accidents. 12% were head injuries. So whatever all those extra helmets > were doing they were not reducing head injuries. > > In the UK the proportion of female under-16 cyclists wearing helmets is > double that of males. The proportion female under 16 cyclists suffering > head injuries is virtually identical to that of males. So whatever all > those extra helmets are doing for the girls, they are not protecting > them from head injuries. > > The country with the lowest head injury rate for cyclists is Holland. > They also have the lowest helmet wearing rate in the developed world at > 0.1%. Curiously the USA is the reverse with six times the death rate per > km cycled and a 38% helmet wearing rate. > > In Australia where helmets are mandatory and enforced, one state has > repealed the helmet law. That state now has the highest cycling rate > and lowest head injury rate in Australia. Very interesting information, and I'd like to read more. Can you post links to the studies or web sites where you got them?             Date: 30 Oct 2005 18:04:30 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted Rich wrote: > Tony Raven wrote: > > > In the US, in 1991 18% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 568,000 >> cyclist accidents requiring hospital treatment. 12% were head injuries. >> By 2000, 30% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 627,160 cyclist >> accidents. 12% were head injuries. So whatever all those extra >> helmets were doing they were not reducing head injuries. >> >> In the UK the proportion of female under-16 cyclists wearing helmets >> is double that of males. The proportion female under 16 cyclists >> suffering head injuries is virtually identical to that of males. So >> whatever all those extra helmets are doing for the girls, they are not >> protecting them from head injuries. >> >> The country with the lowest head injury rate for cyclists is Holland. >> They also have the lowest helmet wearing rate in the developed world >> at 0.1%. Curiously the USA is the reverse with six times the death >> rate per km cycled and a 38% helmet wearing rate. >> >> In Australia where helmets are mandatory and enforced, one state has >> repealed the helmet law. That state now has the highest cycling rate >> and lowest head injury rate in Australia. > > Very interesting information, and I'd like to read more. Can you post > links to the studies or web sites where you got them? With pleasure. The international definitions of the various types of injury classes are given by the OECD in http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/1/2103123.pdf The US data comes from the CPSC National Electronic Injury Surveillance System: http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html The UK data comes from a paper that is well worth reading: Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol 37 pp807-815 http://snipurl.com/g10l The Netherlands/US data comes from http://www.cyclehelmets.org/index.html The Australian data is from "Australia Cycling; Bicycle Ownership, Use and Demographics" July 2004 by the Australian Bicycle Council. -- Tony "I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't" Anon         Date: 30 Oct 2005 12:49:45 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > It is misguided because it concerns only "serious" accidents and I'm > betting you agree that far more less than "serious" accidents happen > than serious. Certainly "less than serious" accidents happen, but by their very nature they aren't serious. I've banged my head a few times and drawn blood doing housework, I'm not alone in that. I don't feel the need for a hlemt doing it though, and I doubt you do either. > Where are the stats for those, the ones that without a > helmet might have called for an ER visit and stitching? If there were a significant number of those then there would be a drop in the overall figures of serious injuries, but there aren't. > Put -'em up if you gottem, but I'm lookin' forward to your sounds of > silence. They don't exist because they don't get to ER rooms. But they don't get into the serious figures which they would have done otherwise, and the serious head injury rates would have gone down accordingly. But they haven't. > Where is your data on non-serious injuries? Without any on your part, > anecdotal evidence is better than your lack of information. See above. For non-serious injuries they amount to basically discomfort, /if/ I have one. A helmet means discomfort on 100% of trips. > Well, if it is that easy, why haven't you done it? Why haven't I done what? > Really, how do you propose that be measured? They only measure srious > injuries and have no data at all on those that walk away without a > report being filed. But if they meant a serious injury was /avoided/ then the annual rate of serious injuries would be coming down, and would show a better trend than that for pedestrians who have historically matched cyclist trends for years since before helmets were introduced. This hasn't happened. > Again, you are using apples to make statements about oranges and are > clueless that you are doing it. No I'm not. You read through the work at www.cyclehelmets.org and pick the real holes in it. It's fully referenced so you can get back to the sources. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 28 Oct 2005 07:33:43 From: Butch Subject: Re: advisor wanted I have added a simple extension to my existing Visor using a product called Darico Foamies, a kind of stiff foam rubber, I use black. It is available in any craft or hobby store and I think at Wal t. I suggest making it large and then cutting it back if you find it to large. It is easy to use cuts with sisors? I simply glue it in place using Goop or the Wal t equivalent Welder (sold in paint department). I have no problem with it in the wind. Oh yes a sheet of this Foamies big enough for 2 visors is $1 to $2 dollars depending on the thickness you decide to use. For Mr. Peter Clinch, I wish you the best in your riding, but using a Helmet is a lot like smoking you don't need an expert or statistics to show you what to do only common sense. FYI I was riding a Century here in Florida a few years ago, my recumbent group rides normally over 6000 miles a year, when I thought maybe I will stop wearing a helmet, quite by chance I am sure my buddy a experienced Gold Rush rider started fooling with his water bottles and went off the trail, he made the fatal mistake of putting his right foot down (yes he had good clips), I was right behind him and watched as he pivoted about his planted foot breaking his leg in two places and landed on his forehead on the side of the rocky R to T Wilthalacooche Trail. His helmet visor was split and his helmet cracked but he did not hurt his head. If that is not enough I was riding my Rans V2 in slightly slippery conditions going to fast and I fell in front of my buddy on a Rans Vrex, I can show you the helmet with the impression of his chain ring in it if you want. To put it in simple terms "Shit Happens", its your life, you know what it is worth. Happy Trails Butch     Date: 28 Oct 2005 16:35:36 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted Butch wrote: > For Mr. Peter Clinch, I wish you the best in your riding, but using a > Helmet is a lot like smoking you don't need an expert or statistics to > show you what to do only common sense. Then why doesn't the "common sense" factor into any improvement whatsoever in serious injury rates anywhere helmet wearing rates increase? It's common sense that that would surely happen if they improved matters, but they have a track record of doing *nothing*. > To put > it in simple terms "Shit Happens", its your life, you know what it is > worth. It certainly does. And it continues to happen wearing helmets, and there is no national population anywhere who have shown an improvement in their serious head injury rate from wearing cycle helmets. All of your anecdotes, and all of everyone else's anecdotes, go into full population data. And that data has serious head injury rates unaffected by helmet wearing. So either your anecdotes of being /sure/ helmets must make things much better are balanced by incidents where they make things worse, or you're assuming a much worse incident would have transpired without a helmet than would have actually been the case. The population figures don't tell us what we think /might/ happen, but what *has* happened. And what has happened from increased helmet wearing is no real change to serious head injury rates. That's what *has* happened, common sense or not. Here's a quote from Brian Walker, who runs Head Protection Evaluation, the company that test helmets meet standards in the UK. He's an accredited expert witness too, I believe: "the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work, tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to so do, stating that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to be made" There is very much more to it than "common sense". I used to always wear a helmet for reasons of "common sense", but the more you investigate the reality the more you find you're unlikely to save yourself a serious injury, and /exactly/ the same logic of "shit happens" applies to being a pedestrian. Hundreds of people in the UK are killed in simple trips and falls every year, so since "shit happens" and it's common sense to guard against it and you feel a cycle helmet can save significant injury, do you wear one as a pedestrian, or around the house, especially using stairs? Your logical argument for helmet use on a cycle suggests you should, so if not, *why* not? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/       Date: 28 Oct 2005 16:03:12 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:35:36 +0100, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: >Butch wrote: > >> For Mr. Peter Clinch, I wish you the best in your riding, but using a >> Helmet is a lot like smoking you don't need an expert or statistics to >> show you what to do only common sense. > >Then why doesn't the "common sense" factor into any improvement >whatsoever in serious injury rates anywhere helmet wearing rates >increase? It's common sense that that would surely happen if they >improved matters, but they have a track record of doing *nothing*. > >> To put >> it in simple terms "Shit Happens", its your life, you know what it is >> worth. > >It certainly does. And it continues to happen wearing helmets, and >there is no national population anywhere who have shown an improvement >in their serious head injury rate from wearing cycle helmets. You know, stats are very interesting, sorta like facts, one man's is another's lies. Can you say for certain that if no one were to wear helmets, the situation would not be worse than it is? What I know for a fact is that a helmet kept me from making a trip to an ER for stitches at a minimum. Why can I say that? A pointed rock PENETRATED the helmet deep enough to scratch my scalp. That helmet is certainly tougher than my skin. The jury is out on the denisty of my skull, however. So, figure a $70 helmet versus an ER bill for wound cleaning and stitching. Makes economic sense to me. >All of your anecdotes, and all of everyone else's anecdotes, go into >full population data. And that data has serious head injury rates >unaffected by helmet wearing. So either your anecdotes of being /sure/ >helmets must make things much better are balanced by incidents where >they make things worse, or you're assuming a much worse incident would >have transpired without a helmet than would have actually been the case. > >The population figures don't tell us what we think /might/ happen, but >what *has* happened. And what has happened from increased helmet >wearing is no real change to serious head injury rates. That's what >*has* happened, common sense or not. Did he allow for the increased population that are riding bikes today, the advent of downhilling at breakneck speeds, increased (and more hostile) traffic on the roads? If not, he only taken a snap shot in time looking at the past - not into what is coming. Any research can be skewed in any direction the researcher wants. And merely forgetting to look at one variable can have the same effect - skewing. >Here's a quote from Brian Walker, who runs Head Protection Evaluation, >the company that test helmets meet standards in the UK. He's an >accredited expert witness too, I believe: > >"the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work, >tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting >for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be >safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to so do, stating >that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and >without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of >cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to >be made" This is an interesting bit. No helmet can protect all users from every possible accident. I know someone who headered into a concrete lamppost base and broke his neck. Dead with or without helmet, in this case. So, in terms of "serious" accident, the jury may be out. In terms of lesser cuts and bruises? Doesn't look like anyone is addressing that specifically. Sure, my accident might not have killed me or brooken my skull (serious) were I without a helmet, but I do know that I did not have to go to the ER and based on the helmet damage and its relative strength compared to my scalp, I probably would have had to without a helmet. And there is the rub of a shortsightedness in the research - it cannot allow for lesser accidents that do not require hospital reports (serious). It cannot track or effectively report the impacts of accidents (with or without helmets) where the injury did not require a hospital visit. How many of them would have gone from a banged head with a helmet to an ER visit without a helmet? That data is totally missing. And that is some very pertinent data. BTW, don't ever denigrate anecdotal evidence. It means little in isolation, but in aggregate, points to areas where deeper research is needed. It is like that fleeting warning that lets you know there are more serious matters coming. >There is very much more to it than "common sense". I used to always >wear a helmet for reasons of "common sense", but the more you >investigate the reality the more you find you're unlikely to save >yourself a serious injury, and /exactly/ the same logic of "shit >happens" applies to being a pedestrian. Hundreds of people in the UK >are killed in simple trips and falls every year, so since "shit happens" >and it's common sense to guard against it and you feel a cycle helmet >can save significant injury, do you wear one as a pedestrian, or around >the house, especially using stairs? Your logical argument for helmet >use on a cycle suggests you should, so if not, *why* not? Irrelevant. Walking, or taking a shower for that matter, is not considered as being a hazardous activity; riding in traffic or downhilling are. You are mixing apples and oranges to make your case. jim         Date: 28 Nov 2005 16:05:12 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: advisor wanted Just zis Guy, you know? (Guy Chapman) wrote: > > This might apply where there is actual published evidence to support > the device increasing safety, but this appears absent in the case of > lights (let alone massively bright vs. adequately bright lights). Nonsense! A coherent light source of proper frequency and intensity will ionize all obstructions in the cyclist's path. This is definitely a safety benefit. ;) -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley "ever get suspicious about chain saw oil attracting wood dust? generally mucking up after two cuts? try dumping hot oil into a container just right sized for inserting the running blade on the job. rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..... plus 750 rpm! " - G. Daniels         Date: 23 Nov 2005 07:26:48 From: SMS Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > What I know for a fact is that a helmet kept me from making a trip to > an ER for stitches at a minimum. Why can I say that? A pointed rock > PENETRATED the helmet deep enough to scratch my scalp. That helmet is > certainly tougher than my skin. The jury is out on the denisty of my > skull, however. So, figure a $70 helmet versus an ER bill for wound > cleaning and stitching. > > Makes economic sense to me. Most people don't look at the economic aspect. In the U.S., the deductible for an ER visit is usually $25-50. But it'd be pretty amazing to find anyone that compares the price of a helmet versus the price of an ER visit, and makes that the determining factor in deciding whether or not to wear a helmet. Overall, the difference in death rates for helmet wearers versus non-helmet wearers is not order of magnitudes different. The best studies show the difference is around 3x in terms of fatalities, with injury rates being about equal. Many of the non-helmeted fatalities would have been helmeted injuries, so you have to be sure to take things in context. In any case, this has diverged from the original post, where the poster inquired about how to reduce glare by use of a visor. That poster already understood the relative risks of helmet versus no-helmet, and was trying to do something about glare. Once Peter Clinch jumped in with his incorrect statement "there's no conclusive proof that helmets do anything to reduce your chances of a serious injury," this turned into another helmet thread. What is true is that there is no conclusive proof that wearing a helmet reduces the chance of a head-impact collision, and the number of such collisions is sufficiently rare that over the whole bicycling population the statistical difference in death and injuries for helmeted versus non-helmeted cyclists is insignificant. However there is conclusive proof that in the event of a head impact accident, a helmet greatly reduces the severity of injury, and reduces the likelihood that the injury will turn into a fatality.           Date: 26 Nov 2005 10:57:37 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 07:26:48 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > said in <43848a2c$0$75785$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >: >What is true is that there is no conclusive proof that wearing a helmet >reduces the chance of a head-impact collision, and the number of such >collisions is sufficiently rare that over the whole bicycling population >the statistical difference in death and injuries for helmeted versus >non-helmeted cyclists is insignificant. However there is conclusive >proof that in the event of a head impact accident, a helmet greatly >reduces the severity of injury, and reduces the likelihood that the >injury will turn into a fatality. For values of "conclusive proof" which excludes any whole population actually demonstrating a reduction in head injury rates from an increase in helmet use (and several showing the exact opposite). Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken             Date: 28 Nov 2005 19:55:09 From: gotbent Subject: Re: an end to this thread sometime this century "snippage > It's too bad there weren't any bicycle h*lm*t safety studies available in 1940. You guys could have neutralized the German army by boring them to death with this silly prattling on about the DATA! Jeez enough! My eyes are starting to bleed from all the fumes this festering pile is generating. gotbent, the past tense of getbent. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---               Date: 30 Nov 2005 23:23:13 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: an end to this thread sometime this century On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:55:09 -0600, "gotbent" <gofast@golow.com > said in <1133229455_39839@spool6-east.superfeed.net >: >It's too bad there weren't any bicycle h*lm*t safety studies available in >1940. You guys could have neutralized the German army by boring them to >death with this silly prattling on about the DATA! Jeez enough! My eyes are >starting to bleed from all the fumes this festering pile is generating. Silly boy. There were no helmet studies in 1940 because nobody was gullible enough back then to believe that cycling was some kind of extreme sport! Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken                 Date: 01 Dec 2005 21:41:41 From: DD Subject: Re: an end to this thread sometime this century Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: > Silly boy. There were no helmet studies in 1940 because nobody was > gullible enough back then to believe that cycling was some kind of > extreme sport! > > Guy Wasn't there a folding bike used by the parachute regiment? I'm sure riding a bike around Normandy on D-Day 1944 would qualify as an extreme sport, regardless of how good your troopers helmet was. Kids today have got it easy.                   Date: 01 Dec 2005 14:16:58 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: an end to this thread sometime this century DD wrote: > Wasn't there a folding bike used by the parachute regiment? The Welbike was a motor scooter rather than a pedal bike IIRC. No evidence that it was ever the slightest use to the paratroopers, but apparently much sought after for cheap and economical motor transport in continental Europe after hostilities ceased... > riding a bike around Normandy on D-Day 1944 would qualify as an extreme > sport, regardless of how good your troopers helmet was. The Dutch army had a bicycle unit that I presume saw some degree of action in 1940, though with the speed of the occupation I would imagine not very much. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/           Date: 23 Nov 2005 23:09:27 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted SMS wrote: > > However there is conclusive > proof that in the event of a head impact accident, a helmet greatly > reduces the severity of injury, and reduces the likelihood that the > injury will turn into a fatality. Perhaps you could point us to a reference to your "conclusive proof" because those of us who have read the literature are not aware of any such research. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham             Date: 23 Nov 2005 18:32:52 From: SMS Subject: Re: advisor wanted Tony Raven wrote: > SMS wrote: > >> >> However there is conclusive proof that in the event of a head impact >> accident, a helmet greatly reduces the severity of injury, and reduces >> the likelihood that the injury will turn into a fatality. > > > Perhaps you could point us to a reference to your "conclusive proof" > because those of us who have read the literature are not aware of any > such research. > The studies have been posted in every helmet thread. Those that have a philosophical opposition to helmets simply will not believe them.               Date: 28 Nov 2005 22:12:08 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 18:32:52 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > said in <43852645$0$75758$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >: >The studies have been posted in every helmet thread. Those that have a >philosophical opposition to helmets simply will not believe them. Once again you accuse others of your own worst fault. The conflicting evidence has been detailed for you every single time you have repeated this falsehood, and every single time you have continued to assert that "all" the evidence agrees, when it patently does not. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken               Date: 24 Nov 2005 08:52:33 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted SMS wrote: > Tony Raven wrote: >> SMS wrote: >> >>> >>> However there is conclusive proof that in the event of a head impact >>> accident, a helmet greatly reduces the severity of injury, and >>> reduces the likelihood that the injury will turn into a fatality. >> >> >> Perhaps you could point us to a reference to your "conclusive proof" >> because those of us who have read the literature are not aware of any >> such research. >> > > The studies have been posted in every helmet thread. Those that have a > philosophical opposition to helmets simply will not believe them. I didn't ask for the studies that claimed it, I asked for the studies which you say are conclusive proof. I can't recall ever having seen one that could make that claim. But either way, perhaps you could humour me and tell me which study(ies) it is. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham                 Date: 24 Nov 2005 09:09:40 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted Tony Raven wrote: > SMS wrote: >> The studies have been posted in every helmet thread. Those that have a >> philosophical opposition to helmets simply will not believe them. Where "philosophical objection" is finding that the science is deeply flawed, and being well versed in science they find that unacceptable to take as conclusive, certainly the case. > I didn't ask for the studies that claimed it, I asked for the studies > which you say are conclusive proof. I can't recall ever having seen one > that could make that claim. But either way, perhaps you could humour me > and tell me which study(ies) it is. Perhaps someone would tell the manufacturers of cycle helmets too. Here they are, advertising their products with no mention of the degree of protection which has been "conclusively proved", despite such information clearly being an aid to selling a protective helmet, and if it's "conclusive" no legal worries either... The fact that helmets are not advertised as to the degree of protection offered other than the basic specification they meet is a pretty good indication to me that any such "proof" is not really conclusive. If it was then people would be trying to make more money out of helmets by using that proof. As it is only people like BHIT are publicly quoting "proof", and BHIT have been getting into some hot water with the UK's Advertising Standards Authority for doing so. How can that be so, with "conclusive proof"? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/                   Date: 24 Nov 2005 17:04:35 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted Peter Clinch wrote: > > Where "philosophical objection" is finding that the science is deeply > flawed, and being well versed in science they find that unacceptable to > take as conclusive, certainly the case. > That is a philosophical objection. Science was originally known as Natural Philosophy (still is at Cambridge University) so a natural philosophical objection is no more than a scientific objection. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham           Date: 23 Nov 2005 16:28:43 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted SMS wrote: > Overall, the difference in death rates for helmet wearers versus > non-helmet wearers is not order of magnitudes different. The best > studies show the difference is around 3x in terms of fatalities, with > injury rates being about equal. Where definition of "best" is? > In any case, this has diverged from the original post, where the poster > inquired about how to reduce glare by use of a visor. That poster > already understood the relative risks of helmet versus no-helmet Actually it would appear not. > Once Peter Clinch jumped in with his incorrect statement "there's no > conclusive proof that helmets do anything to reduce your chances of a > serious injury," this turned into another helmet thread. But it isn't an incorrect statement. And since a helmet visor isn't the best way to reduce glare IME, it was worth pointing out alternatives that do the requested glare reduction better and don't tangibly change your chances of a serious head injury. > However there is conclusive > proof that in the event of a head impact accident, a helmet greatly > reduces the severity of injury, and reduces the likelihood that the > injury will turn into a fatality. Not according to the expert witnesses cited near the top of the thread. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/             Date: 23 Nov 2005 11:34:44 From: SMS Subject: Re: advisor wanted Peter Clinch wrote: > SMS wrote: > >> Overall, the difference in death rates for helmet wearers versus >> non-helmet wearers is not order of magnitudes different. The best >> studies show the difference is around 3x in terms of fatalities, with >> injury rates being about equal. > > > Where definition of "best" is? A study that records the fatality and injury rates in accidents occuring over a long period of time (many years), and includes the presence or absence of a helmet. This type of study does not get into the question of the effectiveness of helmet laws, or the likelihood of an accident occuring in the first place. All it measures is the number of injuries and their severity, and the number of fatalities, when accidents occur and are investigated. Such a study could still be skewed of course. It could be argued that cyclists that didn't wear helmets were also more likely to be poorer riders, hence the increase in injuries and fatalities. It could also be argued that the cyclists that didn't wear helmets actually were better riders, or risk-compensated, otherwise the difference in injuries and fatalities would be even greater. Bottom line is that you're not going to ever get a completely double-blind study, it's not possible. You just have to go with the best study you can find. > And since a helmet visor isn't the best way to reduce glare IME, it was > worth pointing out alternatives that do the requested glare reduction > better and don't tangibly change your chances of a serious head injury. The original poster already understood that helmets have been proven to reduce the likelihood of serious injury, when a crash occurs. Several people saw this as an opportunity to go into AHZ attack mode. > Not according to the expert witnesses cited near the top of the thread. I looked back through this thread and did not see any such posts. Who were you referring to?               Date: 24 Nov 2005 09:17:44 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted SMS wrote: > to ever get a completely double-blind study, it's not possible. You just > have to go with the best study you can find. And why wouldn't that be the biggest and broadest one ever, that Guy highlighted earlier in the thread, that concluded no benefit? > The original poster already understood that helmets have been proven to > reduce the likelihood of serious injury, when a crash occurs. Several > people saw this as an opportunity to go into AHZ attack mode. If I was an anti helmet zealot I wouldn't own and use a helmet, would I? Since the proof you mention only exists as "conclusive" in the same head that thinks someone that owns and uses a helmet is an "anti helmet zealot", no surprising that there are flaws in the argument you haven't registered. > I looked back through this thread and did not see any such posts. Who > were you referring to? Brian Walker of Head Protection Evaluation, who tests helmets for the UK government, noting the opinions of the neurosurgeon expert witnesses in the court case he cited. Here it is again for the hard of seeing: "the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work, tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to so do, stating that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to be made." And that despite "conclusive proof" to the contrary... Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/         Date: 31 Oct 2005 23:44:56 From: Just zis Guy, you know? Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:03:12 -0700, ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com said in <u1a5m1hfpqbsk3tj01l5ropucnvbu2hb9k@4ax.com >: >Can you say for certain that if no one were to wear helmets, the >situation would not be worse than it is? Interesting reversal of the burden of proof there. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken         Date: 29 Oct 2005 12:24:06 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > You know, stats are very interesting, sorta like facts, one man's is > another's lies. They can be like that when misused, but the thing about helmets is that if you turn a bunch of professional scientists with no vested interests in proving things one way or the other on the helmet data they tend to find a lot of holes in the "these really help!" case and nothing like so many problems in the "they don't actually do much" case. > Can you say for certain that if no one were to wear helmets, the > situation would not be worse than it is? No. But nor can I say for certain the opposite. And nor can you. > What I know for a fact is that a helmet kept me from making a trip to > an ER for stitches at a minimum. Not really, you can't. > Why can I say that? A pointed rock > PENETRATED the helmet deep enough to scratch my scalp. That helmet is > certainly tougher than my skin. But the helmet makes your head effectively bigger, so more likely to hit something like that rock to start with, and it affects the way you ride so you may not have had the accident at all if you hadn't been wearing it (sounds far fetched? Everyone knows seat belts improve your chances in a car, yet in the wake of compulsory seatbelt legislation in the UK the car occupant injury rates didn't move much but pedestrian and cyclist injuries increased noticably, thanks to all of theose "safer" car occupants driving worse thanks to being "safer"). > The jury is out on the denisty of my > skull, however. So, figure a $70 helmet versus an ER bill for wound > cleaning and stitching. Well, you have a factor there that doesn't bother me because the National Health Service didn't charge me a penny for the overnight stay with concussion I had after an accident (in which I was wearing a helmet, by the way: it fractured, and in brittle failure it only absorbs a fraction of what it should). > Did he allow for the increased population that are riding bikes today, > the advent of downhilling at breakneck speeds, increased (and more > hostile) traffic on the roads? Looking at whole population figures over time, everything is taken into account because /all/ of the reported incidents are in there (and most serious incidents are reported). > If not, he only taken a snap shot in time looking at the past - not > into what is coming. Because the population figures deal with things over the period of the recorded data you can see clear trends. Since before helmets existed cyclist serious injuries have generally followed the pedestrian trrends very closely. They have continued to do that as helmets are increasingly used by cyclists with the peds being a useful unhelmeted control group. In countries with mandatory helmet laws the wearing rate has shot up from ~20% to nearly full compiance and done it in a very short space of time, yet there isn't so much as a noticable blip in the serious injury rate over the same period. How can that be, if they're effcetive in preventing serious injuries? > Any research can be skewed in any direction the researcher wants. But if it's published and open to criticism then it's clear to see. And what takes a lot of very bruising flak is the researcgh that says helmets are very effective, and questions from the more sceptical point of view have remained unsanswered. > merely forgetting to look at one variable can have the same effect - > skewing. And this can be pointed out by anyone reading the research critically. I have. I know quite a few people who have who are better objective critics than me, and several of them have, like me, gone from the "it's daft not to wear one" stance to not bothering. It would not be in our interests to stop waering something we already own and were used to wearing if we didn't think the numbers stood up. > In terms of lesser cuts and bruises? Doesn't look like anyone is > addressing that specifically. It's very difficult to because small injuries are very likely to be unreported. The data simply isn't good enough to stand up to analysis. > Sure, my accident might not have killed > me or brooken my skull (serious) were I without a helmet, but I do > know that I did not have to go to the ER and based on the helmet > damage and its relative strength compared to my scalp, I probably > would have had to without a helmet. For small injuries I believe they can help. That's why I'll usually wear my helmet for mountain biking where the sort of low speed crash with no other vehicle involved that cycle helmets are *designed* for is quite likely. But on the road I'm not likely to have that sort of accident and bang my head, against which if I waer a helmet I can guarantee I will have reduced comfort every time I climb on the bike. I ride a 'bent for comfort, so why put a foam box on my head to ruin things? > And there is the rub of a shortsightedness in the research - it cannot > allow for lesser accidents that do not require hospital reports > (serious). It cannot track or effectively report the impacts of > accidents (with or without helmets) where the injury did not require a > hospital visit. How many of them would have gone from a banged head > with a helmet to an ER visit without a helmet? That data is totally > missing. And that is some very pertinent data. The number of visits that have fallen from seriious to not be worth bothering about /will/ appear in the form of a drop of total serious injuries, unless the rate at which that happens is /exactly/ compensated for by more serious injuries from another cause that doesn't affect the control data group of pedestrains, who are just as at risk from worsening driving as cyclists (and we have decades of numbers to show that to be true). > BTW, don't ever denigrate anecdotal evidence. It means little in > isolation, but in aggregate, points to areas where deeper research is > needed. In aggregate is *exactly* what the whole population data is. That is what I'm looking at, hundreds of thousands of data points, rather than one or two. > It is like that fleeting warning that lets you know there are > more serious matters coming. But the aggregate data tells us we're actually rekably safe. Per unit distance safer than being a pedestrian in the UK. So if I cycle to work rather than walk I'm less likely to be involved in a RTA, so why wouldn't you think I should wear a helmet if I walk? > Irrelevant. Walking, or taking a shower for that matter, is not > considered as being a hazardous activity; riding in traffic or > downhilling are. You are mixing apples and oranges to make your case. But walking *is* a comparably hazardous activity. We know this because of the aggregate population data. It may not be /considered/ as hazardous but this is why you need to look at hard numbers rather than make "common sense" assumptions. Downhilling is certainly a different matter. I wouldn't try it anyway, if you did persuade me there's no way I'd do it without a lid. But downhilling has no more to do with cycling in traffic than international rally driving has to do with commuting to work by car. Rally drivers wear 5 point harnesses, flameproof suits and helmets. Commuter drivers don't. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/           Date: 31 Oct 2005 10:39:02 From: gotbent Subject: Re: advisor wanted Helmets are kind of like tire pumps. Having a pump along for the ride won't prevent p*nct*r*s, but if you get one, you'll be glad you had one with you. I wonder if the insurance industry has good data about h*lm*ts and how they figure into injury/treatment equation. much snippage of 'your data are crap and my data are gold standard' ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----             Date: 31 Oct 2005 18:58:04 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted gotbent wrote: > Helmets are kind of like tire pumps. Having a pump along for the > ride won't prevent p*nct*r*s, but if you get one, you'll be glad > you had one with you. Up to a point... but the above implies if you're in an accident you /will/ be better off with a helmet. But if that were the case then we would expect to see a dent in the serious accident figures with increasing helmet usage, but we don't. What the mechanism underlying this lack of effect is we don't really know. There are various suggested mechanisms but we don't know to what extent they operate. But we do know the final outcome of that operation appears to be no effect on serious injuries, so we can't say with any confidence that if you have an accident with potential to give serious head injuries that you will be better off with a helmet than without. Read the quote from Brian Walker I gave again (Tony has re-quoted it in the other followup to your post). I'll grant you that it seems obvious you'd be better off with a helmet, but just because common sense tells you that it doesn't make it right. Common sense also says if they help we'll see an effect on casualties, so with two bits of obvious common sense we've got contradictions. Which tells us we can't simply rely on common sense for the answers. > I wonder if the insurance industry has good data about h*lm*ts > and how they figure into injury/treatment equation See Tony's reply for more on that. > much > snippage of 'your data are crap and my data are gold standard' One or two anecdotes vs. the effective total sum of all anecdotes. There really isn't much question as to which is the more useful statistical starting point. If you want to argue that even so it isn't "gold standard" I would agree, but it's still the best we've got and a better thing to be working with than one or two people assuring you a helmet saved their life. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/               Date: 31 Oct 2005 13:16:43 From: gotbent Subject: Re: advisor wanted snippage I'm one of the anecdotal cases. I crashed, broke my collar bone, and hit my head hard enough for the foam along the temple line to compress more than half its thickness. My eyeglasses cut a huge gash across the top of my nose. Plenty of aches from my near 30 mph crash. No concussion or even a headache. Did I do something stupid...yes succeeded in getting too much air jumping a break in the road, and went into an oscillation when I landed. Did I do something stupid because I was wearing a helmet? Probably not. Certainly it was a testosterone induced wave of stupidity, as in those days I routinely jumped railroad tracks without any problem. Man, I got some major air that time though, and the back of the bike started to come around and I knew I was fucked big-time. So, I'm probably a data point flyer, but I know I'm fallible and even if the stats are right, and I never have another head impact gravity event, I'll still wear a helmet whenever I ride. I wish you well too. Safe rides and all that. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----                 Date: 31 Oct 2005 20:02:40 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted gotbent wrote: > I'm one of the anecdotal cases. <snip> I don't doubt it. But there still isn't any reduction in overall serious injuries from increased helmet wearing. In the quote previously made eminent neurosurgeons said it was too complex an issue to say that one was clearly better off with a helmet than without, so it is entirely possible that in some cases helmets can make things worse (have a google for "rotational injuries" as a possible mechanism, in addition to more cases of hitting one's head /at all/ due to an effectively bigger and heavier head). You can't make any assumptions about a notional next accident and if a hat will help, hinder, or do nothing, yet that's what a lot of people are doing. Given it is quite natural for people to assume a positive benefit you won't hear anecdotes saying how they made things worse, but remember that population level statistics of all serious injuries include all the positive anecdotes, including those where an injury has been removed from the serious bracket altogether, and despite all these anecdotes things haven't improved. I had my own anecdote which you can google out from uk.rec.cycling where I was wearing a helmet and I was convinced it saved me a much worse injury. Perhaps it did, but that is still no guarantee about how a helmet will affect another accident I may have. The hard numbers tell me my chances are no better or no worse whether or not I wear one. It was /very/ difficult abandoning my helmet for routine riding, but now I have I'm glad I did: I'm much more comfortable and enjoy my cycling more, and there is no evidence, /despite/ my previous anecdotal experience, that I am in any more danger of a serious head injury. See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1019 for more detail and references. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/             Date: 31 Oct 2005 17:49:50 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: advisor wanted gotbent wrote: > Helmets are kind of like tire pumps. Having a pump along for the ride won't > prevent p*nct*r*s, but if you get one, you'll be glad you had one with you. > > I wonder if the insurance industry has good data about h*lm*ts and how they > figure into injury/treatment equation. The problem with that sort of observational study is that it is a much discredited way of assessing things and has led to some major medical mistakes such as in MMR and HRT. For a critique have a look at http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/3/464 and http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7471/868 I don't know about elsewhere in the world but in the UK Courts, no insurance company has succeeded with a contributory negligence claim in personal head injury cases when the cyclist victim was not wearing a helmet (and they have tried). Either they have the data and are not using it, suggesting it does not help them, or they don't have it. Someone closely involved in two of these cases has said: "Referring back to the Court case mentioned early, the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work, tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to so do, stating that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to be made." and "In a recent Court case, a respected materials specialist argued that a cyclist who was brain injured from what was essentially a fall from their cycle, without any real forward momentum, would not have had their injuries reduced or prevented by a cycle helmet. This event involved contact against a flat tarmac surface with an impact energy potential of no more than 75 joules (his estimate, with which I was in full agreement). The court found in favour of his argument." Make of that what you will. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham           Date: 29 Oct 2005 21:02:12 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:24:06 +0100, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote: >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > >> You know, stats are very interesting, sorta like facts, one man's is >> another's lies. > >They can be like that when misused, but the thing about helmets is >that if you turn a bunch of professional scientists with no vested >interests in proving things one way or the other on the helmet data >they tend to find a lot of holes in the "these really help!" case >and nothing like so many problems in the "they don't actually do >much" case. >> Can you say for certain that if no one were to wear helmets, the >> situation would not be worse than it is? > >No. But nor can I say for certain the opposite. And nor can you. Well, you seem to want to be able to take all kinds of poetic license. Are you opposed to my doing the same? >> What I know for a fact is that a helmet kept me from making a trip to >> an ER for stitches at a minimum. > >Not really, you can't. Yes I can. The only thing that prevented my head from hitting the rock was the helmet because that was the initial point of impact. >> Why can I say that? A pointed rock >> PENETRATED the helmet deep enough to scratch my scalp. That helmet is >> certainly tougher than my skin. > >But the helmet makes your head effectively bigger, so more likely >to hit something like that rock to start with, and it affects the >way you ride so you may not have had the accident at all if you >hadn't been wearing it (sounds far fetched? Everyone knows seat >belts improve your chances in a car, yet in the wake of compulsory >seatbelt legislation in the UK the car occupant injury rates didn't >move much but pedestrian and cyclist injuries increased noticably, >thanks to all of theose "safer" car occupants driving worse thanks >to being "safer"). BS, and you know it. Otherwise, use some aviation accident data to prove that the cost of lettuce didn't rise. >> The jury is out on the denisty of my >> skull, however. So, figure a $70 helmet versus an ER bill for wound >> cleaning and stitching. > >Well, you have a factor there that doesn't bother me because the >National Health Service didn't charge me a penny for the overnight >stay with concussion I had after an accident (in which I was >wearing a helmet, by the way: it fractured, and in brittle failure >it only absorbs a fraction of what it should). Nice that you have socialized medicine. We don't. But were you to go to the ER what do you figure it costs you in terms of paying yourself? If you are not aware of this factor, it means figuring out what the time in the hospital cost you in terms of how much an hour you get paid. The same principle can be applied to driving across town to save a dime a galloin on gas, FWIW. >> Did he allow for the increased population that are riding bikes today, >> the advent of downhilling at breakneck speeds, increased (and more >> hostile) traffic on the roads? > >Looking at whole population figures over time, everything is taken >into account because /all/ of the reported incidents are in there >(and most serious incidents are reported). Again, where is your ddata on the non-reported accidnets? >> If not, he only taken a snap shot in time looking at the past - not >> into what is coming. > >Because the population figures deal with things over the period of >the recorded data you can see clear trends. Since before helmets >existed cyclist serious injuries have generally followed the >pedestrian trrends very closely. They have continued to do that as >helmets are increasingly used by cyclists with the peds being a >useful unhelmeted control group. In countries with mandatory >helmet laws the wearing rate has shot up from ~20% to nearly full >compiance and done it in a very short space of time, yet there >isn't so much as a noticable blip in the serious injury rate over >the same period. How can that be, if they're effcetive in >preventing serious injuries? The only trend visible here is that you are using apples to make a case about oranges and are rekably without any data concerning less than serious accidents. That is what is patently visible. >> Any research can be skewed in any direction the researcher wants. > >But if it's published and open to criticism then it's clear to see. > And what takes a lot of very bruising flak is the researcgh that >says helmets are very effective, and questions from the more >sceptical point of view have remained unsanswered. Tell it to the MIT researcher who was just fired for manupulating data and using false data. He got caught, but now everyone ois wondering about all the previous stuff that went through this process without detection. Tell it to the cold fusion gang, too. >> merely forgetting to look at one variable can have the same effect - >> skewing. > >And this can be pointed out by anyone reading the research >critically. I have. I know quite a few people who have who are >better objective critics than me, and several of them have, like >me, gone from the "it's daft not to wear one" stance to not >bothering. It would not be in our interests to stop waering >something we already own and were used to wearing if we didn't >think the numbers stood up. See above. Even those folks you are waxing poetic about can be fooled. Happens all the time. >> In terms of lesser cuts and bruises? Doesn't look like anyone is >> addressing that specifically. > >It's very difficult to because small injuries are very likely to be >unreported. The data simply isn't good enough to stand up to analysis. Precisely, and what about that helmet in those situations? Did they prevent a serious injury to the point it bacame non-reportable? What would the cost have been had the lack of a helmet elevated that injury to a reportable one? ThatIS the problem with using one category of data to make a categorical statement about bike injuries. >> Sure, my accident might not have killed >> me or brooken my skull (serious) were I without a helmet, but I do >> know that I did not have to go to the ER and based on the helmet >> damage and its relative strength compared to my scalp, I probably >> would have had to without a helmet. > >For small injuries I believe they can help. That's why I'll >usually wear my helmet for mountain biking where the sort of low >speed crash with no other vehicle involved that cycle helmets are >*designed* for is quite likely. >But on the road I'm not likely to have that sort of accident and >bang my head, against which if I waer a helmet I can guarantee I >will have reduced comfort every time I climb on the bike. I ride a >'bent for comfort, so why put a foam box on my head to ruin things? Hold it, now you seem to be on the other side. Either they work or they don't. Which is it? You've been denigrtating jelmets throughout all your posts to this point??? >> And there is the rub of a shortsightedness in the research - it cannot >> allow for lesser accidents that do not require hospital reports >> (serious). It cannot track or effectively report the impacts of >> accidents (with or without helmets) where the injury did not require a >> hospital visit. How many of them would have gone from a banged head >> with a helmet to an ER visit without a helmet? That data is totally >> missing. And that is some very pertinent data. > >The number of visits that have fallen from seriious to not be worth >bothering about /will/ appear in the form of a drop of total >serious injuries, unless the rate at which that happens is >/exactly/ compensated for by more serious injuries from another >cause that doesn't affect the control data group of pedestrains, >who are just as at risk from worsening driving as cyclists (and we >have decades of numbers to show that to be true). Not true. That is an ASSumption. >> BTW, don't ever denigrate anecdotal evidence. It means little in >> isolation, but in aggregate, points to areas where deeper research is >> needed. > >In aggregate is *exactly* what the whole population data is. That >is what I'm looking at, hundreds of thousands of data points, >rather than one or two. But, one or two or three at some point become those hundreds or thousands do they not? >> It is like that fleeting warning that lets you know there are >> more serious matters coming. > >But the aggregate data tells us we're actually rekably safe. >Per unit distance safer than being a pedestrian in the UK. So if I >cycle to work rather than walk I'm less likely to be involved in a >RTA, so why wouldn't you think I should wear a helmet if I walk? Aggregate data is like a generalization. There are always exceptions. Anecdotal evidence is that one and two and three. . . >> Irrelevant. Walking, or taking a shower for that matter, is not >> considered as being a hazardous activity; riding in traffic or >> downhilling are. You are mixing apples and oranges to make your case. > >But walking *is* a comparably hazardous activity. We know this >because of the aggregate population data. It may not be >/considered/ as hazardous but this is why you need to look at hard >numbers rather than make "common sense" assumptions. Getting up out of bed is far more hazardous. So what? Neither compare to cycling in any form. I've walked for most of my 60 years and have walked far more miles than I have cycled over the last 14-15. Walking has only resulted in a tweaked ankle or two. Cycling has caused torn calf muscle, broken collar bone and torn rotator cuff from three separate incidents. Only the collar bone accidnet caused a hospital visit and fortunately, I was wearing my helmet (had no choice really, required for the ride) and it sucked up that rock. >Downhilling is certainly a different matter. I wouldn't try it >anyway, if you did persuade me there's no way I'd do it without a >lid. But downhilling has no more to do with cycling in traffic >than international rally driving has to do with commuting to work >by car. Rally drivers wear 5 point harnesses, flameproof suits and >helmets. Commuter drivers don't. Guess you should come on over here and drive out freeways. Might give you an entirely new perspective on this. ;- > jim             Date: 30 Oct 2005 13:21:07 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > Well, you seem to want to be able to take all kinds of poetic license. > Are you opposed to my doing the same? So what poetic license have I taken? It's like the scene in Jerry Maguire where Tom Cruise's client isn't interested in Nice Words, he wants Tom's character to "show me the money!". The change is I'm asking you to show me the casualty savings. The data is there for you to look at, governments with a vested interest in showing their mandatory helmet laws have produced a beneficial effect haven't been able to find those savings though. In the UK the government is pro-helmet and seeks to encourage their use, yet in a written reply to a parliamentray question the responsible minister had to admit there was no known case of helmets being preoven to improve safety, and he had a whole department of civil service statisticians to help him. So: "Show me the casualty savings!" > BS, and you know it. Actually, I know it's true. Again, the data and research is out there for several countries, so you show me the data that tells us the extent to which compulsory seatbelt laws have improved things. "Show me the casualty savings!" > Nice that you have socialized medicine. We don't. But were you to go > to the ER what do you figure it costs you in terms of paying yourself? > If you are not aware of this factor, it means figuring out what the > time in the hospital cost you in terms of how much an hour you get > paid. The same principle can be applied to driving across town to save > a dime a galloin on gas, FWIW. But this assumes I'd be spending more time there. As the neurosurgeon expert witnesses observed by Brian Walker pointed out, it isn't actually as straightforward as a helmet makes you safer, period, and as David Jamieson, UK Government Minister, had to admit, the [UK] Government knows of no case where cyclist safety has improved with increasing helmet use (and again I emphasize that this man is *pro* helmet). "Show me the casualty savings!" > Again, where is your ddata on the non-reported accidnets? Again, the non-serious accidents don't get reported, because they are by definition not very serious. However, again I point out to you that if serious accidents are being downgraded then there should be a drop in the rate for serious injuries. There isn't. "Show me the casualty savings!" > The only trend visible here is that you are using apples to make a > case about oranges and are rekably without any data concerning less > than serious accidents. That is what is patently visible. I'll tell you again. The non-serious accidents don't get reported, because they are by definition not very serious. However, again I point out to you that if serious accidents are being downgraded then there should be a drop in the rate for serious injuries. There isn't. "Show me the casualty savings!" > Tell it to the MIT researcher who was just fired for manupulating data > and using false data. He got caught, but now everyone ois wondering > about all the previous stuff that went through this process without > detection. Tell it to the cold fusion gang, too. The national figures for several different nations are widely available in raw form to be used and interpreted by anyone as they see fit. Bogus use tends to be found out in time, as this chap at MIT has discovered, but since one is working with openly available data and there are lots of folks who know what they're on about such cases don't remain at large indefinitely. And we've been looking at these figures for a *long* time now, and even with a vested interest in showing that the helmets they've mandated are working well, governments who have introduced an MHL have been conspicuous in their inability to show any clear casualty savings. "Show me the casualty savings!" > See above. Even those folks you are waxing poetic about can be fooled. > Happens all the time. Why do you assume that it must be me that's been fooled, and it can't be you. You seem to be working on nothing but assumptions. "Show me the casualty savings!" > Precisely, and what about that helmet in those situations? Did they > prevent a serious injury to the point it bacame non-reportable? What > would the cost have been had the lack of a helmet elevated that injury > to a reportable one? ThatIS the problem with using one category of > data to make a categorical statement about bike injuries. Again I have to point out that if helmets are degrading serious injuries to being non serious then that will have an affect on the serious figures. That you don't catch them elsewhere doesn't affect a drop in the serious figures, but there is no such drop. "Show me the casualty savings!" > Hold it, now you seem to be on the other side. Either they work or > they don't. Don't be simplistic. A good thick leather jacket will protect against stray duckshot quite effectively, but that doesn't mean it's worth a damn against targeted high velocity rifle fire. With regard to helmet efficacy (or not) I have been stating the point that they are no proven use against serious head injuries. That is very different to saving you a nasty graze and a headache. I've had those doing housework, yet in common with almost the whole population I don't feel the need for a helmet doing my housework. > Not true. That is an ASSumption. "Show me the casualty savings!" > But, one or two or three at some point become those hundreds or > thousands do they not? They should, yes. So why do those thousands not add up to any improvement? Perhaps the anecdotes aren't as clear as the reports assume them to be? "Show me the casualty savings!" > Aggregate data is like a generalization. There are always exceptions. > Anecdotal evidence is that one and two and three. . . And since the aggregate is no change, that suggests that there are 2 or 3 the other way where they made things worse... "Show me the casualty savings!" > Getting up out of bed is far more hazardous. So what? Neither compare > to cycling in any form. But they do compare very well. Pedestrian serious injury rates from RTAs have closely mirrored cyclist serious injury rates over the time we've got figures for, and this happens in different countries too. Where one jumps, the other jumps (as happened after compulsory seatbelt legislation has been passed). So they do compare, because they act the same way over time. One is an excellent control for the other. > walked far more miles than I have cycled over the last 14-15. Walking > has only resulted in a tweaked ankle or two. You might tell people on ventilators after being run over when they were crossing the road that your anecdote is more meaningful than theirs. One last thought, and you really should address this with real data rather than on-the-fly assumptions, because the data is out there: "Show me the casualty savings!" Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 27 Oct 2005 21:20:24 From: Jeff Wills Subject: Re: advisor wanted Michael Plog wrote: > I have the same problem. My wife solved hers by wearing a baseball > cap under her helmet. It looks a little funny but when we go into a > store she has her hat on and does not have messed up hair. > My wife also used the cap-under-the-helmet kludge, but then I got her a "Carbon Spider" visor: http://www.lobosolo.com/visor/ . I applied it so it comes down to the same height as the cap's bill, and she likes it lots. It's sold by JW Stephens, a SoCal recumbenteer. Jeff   Date: 27 Oct 2005 19:51:26 From: Mark Leuck Subject: Re: advisor wanted "DD" <me@u.com > wrote in message news:4360cff4$0$8626$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au... > So what set up do you use or suggest for helmets and visors with > recumbents. At the wrong time of day it can be a bit glaring riding the > couch trike towards the sunny side of town. Most bike helmets are made > for road and MTB, a different posture from that of the laid back crowd. > The problem is more acute on my lowracer and it is impractical to ride > in the early hours of the morning mostly one-handed, the other shielding > the eyes from the sun. What fixes or good helmets do you recommend? > > (and if Mr Sunset Lowracer pipes up to explain that he only got his name > because at sunset he only rides his lowracer away from the sun that > ain't what I mean). Thanks for any advice on visors and whatnot. Mr Sunset Lowracer got his name from a low racer made by a now dead company, you don't want to egg him on about it or he'll post that one picture over and over again Which reminds me, hey Tom don't you have any OTHER pictures of that bike?     Date: 02 Nov 2005 19:45:18 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > ... > Where did I say it did? Quit reading between the lines and read the > lines. I was using it as an example of what an ER visit did cost me > and my insurance company. Why would your insurance company pay for you to visit the Queen of England? -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley       Date: 03 Nov 2005 00:01:54 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On 2 Nov 2005 19:45:18 -0800, "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote: > >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> ... >> Where did I say it did? Quit reading between the lines and read the >> lines. I was using it as an example of what an ER visit did cost me >> and my insurance company. > >Why would your insurance company pay for you to visit the Queen of >England? ER=Emergency room. Was previously used, but my error in not restating the term. Bad to think that everyone has been in this since the first set of messages. jim     Date: 02 Nov 2005 19:42:54 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: advisor wanted ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: > ... > My question stands: did they survey all those riders who reduced their > riding and ask them "why?" If they did not, there may be an > intervening variable.... alien mind control!       Date: 02 Nov 2005 23:59:19 From: Subject: Re: advisor wanted On 2 Nov 2005 19:42:54 -0800, "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote: > >ensenadaXXXjim@yahoo.com wrote: >> ... >> My question stands: did they survey all those riders who reduced their >> riding and ask them "why?" If they did not, there may be an >> intervening variable.... > >alien mind control! Ooops, better get out my TV antenna and tinfoil hat! jim   Date: 27 Oct 2005 08:52:23 From: Jon Meinecke Subject: Re: advisor wanted "DD" <me@u.com > wrote > > So what set up do you use or suggest for helmets and > visors with recumbents. I've used a visor extension made from thin closed-cell foam (the sort available in hobby/art stores, about 1/8" thick). Simply cut a crescent shape and hot glue or double-sided tape it to the underside of the existing visor. Mine sticks out only 1/2 an inch or so beyond the original visor but improves its usefulness dramatically. Others have recommended using plastic or cloth sports visors or ball caps. On my newer Giro helmet, the visor seems a bit longer and I haven't added an extension. YMMV. Jon Meinecke   Date: 27 Oct 2005 14:51:33 From: Peter Clinch Subject: Re: advisor wanted DD wrote: > So what set up do you use or suggest for helmets and visors with > recumbents. At the wrong time of day it can be a bit glaring riding the > couch trike towards the sunny side of town. Avoid/solve the problem with a traditional cycling cap. No need to snap up the peak pro-racer style and it keeps a low sun out of your eyes very effectively IME. If you must wear a helmet it should fit underneath, but do be aware there's no conclusive proof that helmets do anything to reduce your chances of a serious injury, looking at the population level data from everywhere they're in use, so just wear the cotton cap and be comparably safe but much more comfortable. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/   Date: 27 Oct 2005 13:24:37 From: Michael Plog Subject: Re: advisor wanted I have the same problem. My wife solved hers by wearing a baseball cap under her helmet. It looks a little funny but when we go into a store she has her hat on and does not have messed up hair. I bought a little visor--the plastic kind found in craft stores and cheap places. This one has no crown but is just a head-band and "bill." The visor is the same color as the helmet. I simply glued the visor to the helmet. I experimented a little and found that any of the super glues work fine. It might look a little strange, but it doesn't seem very noticeable since everything is the same color. Anyway, it tends to work, but I still have to bring my chin to my chest at times to get the sun out of my eyes. I did send an email to helmet manufacturing companies, with just this idea, suggesting a longer snap-in visor. I got an email back saying the suggestion would be passed on to the design people. Perhaps if you sent a similar email, along with others from this group, someone might come up with something. Until then, I'll continue to glue cheap plastic visors to my helmets. "DD" <me@u.com > wrote in message news:4360cff4$0$8626$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au... > So what set up do you use or suggest for helmets and visors with > recumbents. At the wrong time of day it can be a bit glaring riding the > couch trike towards the sunny side of town. Most bike helmets are made > for road and MTB, a different posture from that of the laid back crowd. > The problem is more acute on my lowracer and it is impractical to ride > in the early hours of the morning mostly one-handed, the other shielding > the eyes from the sun. What fixes or good helmets do you recommend? > > (and if Mr Sunset Lowracer pipes up to explain that he only got his name > because at sunset he only rides his lowracer away from the sun that > ain't what I mean). Thanks for any advice on visors and whatnot.