Nice Bike to Work Day Today--With Observations on Bicycle Types, Lighting, and Helmets
SMS
energizer stations.
The station on Stelling in front of Quinlan had the usual Hobee's coffee
cake ("http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1144/848463518_f000731ef8.jpg" but
sans butter thank goodness) and coffee from The Roasted Coffee Bean on
Stevens Creek & Tantau
("http://www.roastedcoffeebean.com/Resources/Coffee%20Class%202005%20%235%20crop%20.gif").
Apple always promotes Bike to Work Day in a big way and this year was no
exception. Their Station on Mariani and De Anza, near their
headquarters, had good bagels, Tropicana Orange Juice, coffee, and free
CatEye TL170 tail lights
("http://www.cateye.com/en/product_detail/271"). They also gave a free
iPad to the first ten cyclists at their station, and Steve Jobs
explained to everyone how to mount the iPad to the handlebars (just
kidding).
Continuing, PGE's station on Homestead near Blaney had a coupon for 100
KWh of free electricity (just kidding).
Continuing down Homestead, Kaiser gave out little bottles of sunscreen
on a carabiner and water bottles.
The last stop prior to getting to work was Agilent's stop on Stevens
Creek near Lawrence. They had some Clif Bars, Powerbars, and water.
The bike mix was definitely more commuter style than in prior years,
with a much lower percentage of classic road bikes. Several nice
folders, including a KHS F-20r
("http://www.khsbicycles.com/09_F20r_07.htm"), and Costco hybrids
(Schwinn Broadway,
"http://reviews.costco.com/2070/11472593/reviews.htm"), and a
Specialized Globe.
I also always notice lighting systems of course, and the end of the
quartz-halogen system powered by an external battery pack is definitely
upon us. Almost every bicycle I saw with lights had either a
self-contained small LED light on the handlerbars or helmet, or a
flashlight mount with an LED flashlight. I got a couple of 'I used to
use lights like that' and stories of their homebrew systems. I did not
see a single dynamo powered light among the hundreds of commuter
bicycles I saw today. Usually I see at least one Breezer with a dynamo
hub, but not this year.
Now to include something about helmets...., I did not see a single
commuter without a helmet until the stop at Agilent where one very well
dressed person with a British accent and a very old steel frame racing
bike stopped at the energizer station. What was surprising is that he
said it was the first time he had biked to work in his decades working
for HP then Agilent.
My lights and horn always draw inquisitive glances, and I encouraged
them to "push the black button." This year the new Bell cup holder
("http://nordicgroup.us/bikecoff/bcimages/bellcruisinjoetogopackage.jpg") was
also of interest to many people, and drew inquiries of where to purchase
it (Target, $5.99).
Steve
"http://bicyclecoffeesystems.com/"
The Earth's Leading Authority on Conveying Coffee by Bicycle�Since 1996
Riding at Night? Visit the World's Top Rated Bicycle Lighting Site:
"http://bicyclelighting.com"
Undecided About Whether or Not to Wear a Helmet?
Visit Bicycle Helmets Myths and Facts at:
"http://sites.google.com/site/bicyclehelmetmythsandfacts/" 35 myths
debunked.
Earth's Independent, Authoritative, and Only Source for Bicycle Luggage
Rack Information, "http://bicycleluggageracks.com/"
Adding Water Bottle Cages to Bicycles without Braze-Ons
"http://nordicgroup.us/cageboss/"
SMS
<snip>
> Undecided About Whether or Not to Wear a Helmet?
> Visit Bicycle Helmets Myths and Facts at:
> "http://sites.google.com/site/bicyclehelmetmythsandfacts/" 35 myths
> debunked.
Oops, it's now actually 36 myths debunked, not 35.
landotter
AMuzi
>> On 13/05/10 9:13 AM, SMS wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Undecided About Whether or Not to Wear a Helmet?
>>> Visit Bicycle Helmets Myths and Facts at:
>>> "http://sites.google.com/site/bicyclehelmetmythsandfacts/" 35 myths
>>> debunked.
>> Oops, it's now actually 36 myths debunked, not 35.
landotter wrote:
> http://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/
> Go evangelize Denmark you hysterical douchebag.
What? you couldn't find a Svenska?
http://ridingpretty.blogspot.com/2009/05/mathildas-bicycle-bike-riding-fashion.html
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
SMS
"If you can not answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still
call him vile names."
� Elbert Hubbard
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> "If you can not answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still
> call him vile names."
>
"If you can not honestly answer a man's arguments, all is not lost;
you can put up a website where you misstate his arguments, and pretend
to refute them. By controlling the website, you can pretend you won."
- SMS
- Frank Krygowski
Jay Beattie
Is the anti-helmet website all unbiased and fair reporting? It's not
like there is no agenda there. -- Jay Beattie.
Michael Press
<650b4372-c8cb-439f...@s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Jay Beattie <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 6:36 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 13, 8:26 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > "If you can not answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still
> > > call him vile names."
> >
> > > — Elbert Hubbard
> >
> > "If you can not honestly answer a man's arguments, all is not lost;
> > you can put up a website where you misstate his arguments, and pretend
> > to refute them. By controlling the website, you can pretend you won."
>
> Is the anti-helmet website all unbiased and fair reporting? It's not
> like there is no agenda there. -- Jay Beattie.
Yes, there is an agenda. It can be clearly stated.
Do you have an objection to that agenda?
--
Michael Press
Jay Beattie
> In article
> <650b4372-c8cb-439f-9538-cd3bbc61c...@s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 13, 6:36 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 13, 8:26 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "If you can not answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still
> > > > call him vile names."
>
> > > > — Elbert Hubbard
>
> > > "If you can not honestly answer a man's arguments, all is not lost;
> > > you can put up a website where you misstate his arguments, and pretend
> > > to refute them. By controlling the website, you can pretend you won."
>
> > Is the anti-helmet website all unbiased and fair reporting? It's not
> > like there is no agenda there. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> Yes, there is an agenda. It can be clearly stated.
> Do you have an objection to that agenda?
Yes. If it is dishonest. Most organizations that take one side of
any dispute usually ignore or mis-cast information that is contrary to
their position. Fair and balanced does not describe any of the web-
sites I have seen either advocating or protesting MHLs. Frank's and
SMS both go over the top and many that are true for them but not
others. Individual risk profiles are entirely ignored. -- Jay Beattie.
SMS
<snip>
> Is the anti-helmet website all unbiased and fair reporting? It's not
> like there is no agenda there. -- Jay Beattie.
OMG, have you looked at some of those sites? It's like watching Fox News
with their motto of "We distort, we decide."
The site I put up was mainly to counter, with statistics, facts, and
logic the distortions, junk science, and junk statistics on sites like
horribly misnamed "Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation," "The Vehicular
Cyclist," and others that intentionally lie to advance their own agenda.
Those sites look at helmets from a political and emotional perspective,
not from a statistical or scientific perspective. They first decided on
what outcome they want, then they distort the facts to reach that
outcome, very much like Faux News.
The site I put up was mainly to point out the scientific, statistical,
and logical errors of those other sites. I've gotten six e-mails
pointing out minor errors which I've corrected.
Frank Krygowski
Jay, if you want to talk about "Frank's" website, you should be
talking about Bicycling Life. That was the one I initiated and helped
found.
If you're talking about Cyclehelmets, I'm a very minor player there,
although I certainly approve of their work. The people that
contribute most of the content are people like professional research
statisticians, medical researchers, nationally famous cycling authors,
authors of multiple refereed journal articles on the topic, etc.
Unlike Scharf, they people who are recognized as top authorities by
people _other_ than themselves.
As for individual risk profiles: I've said many times on this list
that helmets probably make sense for certain types of riding, for
example amateur criterium races and challenging mountain biking.
Those are activities that, by their very nature, generate lots of
crashes that are within the thin capacity of a standard bike helmet.
(I think it's smarter to avoid such activities, but that's beside the
point.)
And I suppose if someone really is so clumsy on a bike that they fall
frequently, they might justify a helmet for ordinary riding, just as
some people with seizure disorders justify one for walking around. I
can think of two friends who might qualify. One of them fell three
times on a single bike ride, with two of the falls occurring while
walking or standing in a parking lot. BTW, later that year she broke
her arm while skiing, and supposedly gave up all such sports afterward
- which was probably wise.
But can you point me to any institutional literature that promotes
bike helmets ONLY for riskier-than-normal riding? I seriously doubt
it. In fact, yesterday I responded to a "bike safety" article whose
author said he ALWAYS wears a bike helmet, even for riding back and
forth in his own driveway.
Face it: Helmet promotion is all about fear mongering, portraying ALL
cycling as incredibly dangerous, and pretending cycling is a very
significant source of serious head injuries.
But those points are demonstrably false. And even if they were true,
it would be foolish to pretend that these flimsy things that pass for
bike helmets would tip the balance from "dangerous" to "safe."
In summary: If there is distortion or misleading information, only a
very small percentage must be on the part of the helmet skeptics.
Your reaction is not based on a rational evaluation. It's based on
your own prejudices.
- Frank Krygowski
Jay Beattie
That was a typo -- I'm not talking about "your" website (if you had
one) or SMS's website. I am talking about both of your arguments, and
I am not saying either of you is lying. I am saying that you are
taking opposite sides -- which become more polarized and abstract and
ugly as the arguments escalate. No one is fair and balanced or
impartial. So when one side accuses the other of being unfair or
inaccurate or even lying, my natural response is "pot, kettle,
black." If I were a judge, I'd ignore both sides and hire my own
experts. -- Jay Beattie.
SMS
> That was a typo -- I'm not talking about "your" website (if you had
> one) or SMS's website. I am talking about both of your arguments, and
> I am not saying either of you is lying. I am saying that you are
> taking opposite sides -- which become more polarized and abstract and
> ugly as the arguments escalate. No one is fair and balanced or
> impartial. So when one side accuses the other of being unfair or
> inaccurate or even lying, my natural response is "pot, kettle,
> black." If I were a judge, I'd ignore both sides and hire my own
> experts. -- Jay Beattie.
I take exception to your analysis. I am very much against any mandatory
helmet laws, and my site explains the reasons why MHLs are a bad idea.
At the same time, I make it clear why the use of logical fallacies (i.e.
driving helmets), the mis-use of statistics, and the lack of scientific
method on those other sites are not in the best interest in stopping
MHLs. Those other sites may provide false reassurance to people that
lack even the most basic critical thinking skills, that there are
absolutely no benefits in helmet use, but you and I (and most people)
understand why those are reassurances have no factual basis.
Actually it's rather unfair to accuse the people behind those other
sites of lacking critical thinking skills, because in fact they almost
certainly do understand why their statements have no logical or factual
basis. They say what they say because they see it as advancing their
agenda, not because it's true. If their goal is to stop MHLs then their
approach is wrong. The stuff they present is so specious that they are
only fooling themselves if they think that more than a handful of
readers are fooled, even in rec.bicycles.tech you see the same few
people making the same specious arguments. Certainly if there's public
input on an MHL, those making the decision are going to listen to
paramedics, doctors, nurses, etc talking about what they see at accident
sites and in the ER, versus listening to the other side talking about
driving and gardening helmets.
Bill Sornson
> Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Is the anti-helmet website all unbiased and fair reporting? It's not
>> like there is no agenda there. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> OMG, have you looked at some of those sites? It's like watching Fox
> News with their motto of "We distort, we decide."
Dude, you lose all credibility when you make these hysterical, pandering (to
leftist AHZs?)comments about Fox, Limbaugh, Tea Partiers, etc.
To paraphrase YOU, when you can't refute/argue issues, resort to insults and
name-calling.
Think about it.
BS
JC Dill
> Face it: Helmet promotion is all about fear mongering, portraying ALL
> cycling as incredibly dangerous, and pretending cycling is a very
> significant source of serious head injuries.
This is BS.
Helmet promotion is about protecting the brain. An "easy" fall from a
bicycle onto pavement can cause serious brain damage if you aren't
wearing a helmet. This is not open for dispute - it's a scientific fact.
I ride both horses and bikes. In the horse world we had a recent
almost-tragedy where an Olympic level dressage rider had a freak
accident while riding in a soft arena. Her horse simply got his legs
tangled and tripped and fell. She was in a coma for weeks, and there
was serious doubt she would recover. Fortunately she came out of the
coma and is recovering now.
Dressage is a very safe equestrian sport - no jumping, primarily riding
very quiet horses, riding in manicured rings. But the head can still
suffer a serious brain injury when you fall from the height of a horse,
and even the best trained horse can trip and fall. There is no doubt
that her injury would not have been as severe if she had been wearing a
helmet.
Most advanced dressage riders don't wear helmets. That's changing.
They see that freak accidents DO happen. A 3-day rider elected to wear
a helmet instead of a top-hat in the dressage phase at a major event a
few weeks ago. (They wear helmets in the other phases of the event when
they are jumping.)
<http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=254183>
And grand prix dressage riders (riders at the top of the sport) are also
starting to wear helmets in competition:
<http://www.nj.com/sports/njsports/index.ssf/2010/03/dressage_riders_wearing_helmet.html>
Helmet advocates (in all sports, not just bicycling) know that it's
quite easy to protect the brain from serious injury in otherwise "easy"
falls by wearing a helmet. They advocate helmet use to prevent injuries
- not because their sport is incredibly dangerous but because ACCIDENTS
HAPPEN and it's so easy to keep the accident from turning into a
life-changing tragic event by wearing a helmet to protect your brain.
If you break your arm it will heal. If you break your brain it is much
more likely to be a permanent life-changing event.
If you don't value your brain, don't wear a helmet. When I see you on a
bike (or horse) without a helmet I know how little you value your own
brain. It shapes my opinion of you as a person. I am less likely to
take anything you say seriously as you are clearly demonstrating poor
judgment (in my opinion) about your own well being.
> But those points are demonstrably false. And even if they were true,
> it would be foolish to pretend that these flimsy things that pass for
> bike helmets would tip the balance from "dangerous" to "safe."
>
> In summary: If there is distortion or misleading information, only a
> very small percentage must be on the part of the helmet skeptics.
> Your reaction is not based on a rational evaluation. It's based on
> your own prejudices.
You need only to look in the mirror to see someone who is spreading
distortion, misleading information, whose reaction isn't based on
rational evaluation, and who harbors prejudices.
jc
Don Freeman
>
> When I see you on a bike (or horse) without a helmet I know how
> little you value your own brain. It shapes my opinion of you as a
> person. I am less likely to take anything you say seriously as you
> are clearly demonstrating poor judgment (in my opinion) about your
> own well being.
>
But ff course making encompassing judgments, based on such a small part
of someone's behavior, gives you a whole shit load of credibility.
--
-Don
www.cosmoslair.com
Cthulhu Saves!!! (In case he needs a midnight snack)
Lou Holtman
Franks next question will be 'do you wear a helmet walking the street?'
Lou
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
Dear JC,
How far does a rider's head fall before it hits the ground from atop a
typical horse?
How far is the helmet drop in testing?
To put it in bicycle terms, would you refuse to ride a 52-inch
highwheeler with a modern bicycle helmet?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Bill Sornson
You will, of course, be flamed for daring to express your opinion and
experience. And once you defend your viewpoint, the insults will become
increasingly mean and personal.
Welcome to /wreck/ Usenet.
BS
Frank Krygowski
Of course, our entire justice system - plus most of the work of most
lawyers, I think - is based on having two sides present opposing
arguments. So does the intellectual sport of debating.
Perhaps you're not that kind of lawyer. Some do specialize in mere
paperwork, such as wills and estates. But surely you know many who
argue in court. Do you recommend the judges ignore them?
If the judge were to hire his own experts, how do you suppose he would
choose one? Would he prefer the credentials of Stephen M. Scharf, the
self-proclaimed "world's greatest expert" on bike headlights, helmets,
and coffee? Or would he prefer those of - say - Dorothy Robinson, a
PhD research statistician, author of many refereed scientific journal
articles on this and other statistical topics, and a confirmed helmet
skeptic?
(And BTW, I've served as an expert witness, and turned down
opportunities to do more of the same.)
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > Face it: Helmet promotion is all about fear mongering, portraying ALL
> > cycling as incredibly dangerous, and pretending cycling is a very
> > significant source of serious head injuries.
>
> This is BS.
>
> Helmet promotion is about protecting the brain. An "easy" fall from a
> bicycle onto pavement can cause serious brain damage if you aren't
> wearing a helmet. This is not open for dispute - it's a scientific fact.
Are you pretending that's true only for riding bicycles and horses?
Do you have any idea of the typical sources of serious brain injury?
Do you have any idea of the relative risk per hour?
As a clue: Bicyclists are definitely fewer than 1% of the head injury
fatalities in the U.S. You won't find that on any pro-helmet website,
but you can look up the total number of brain injury fatalities,
compare with the _total_ number of bicyclist fatalities, and make use
of the exaggerated claims of head injury involvement in the latter.
I'll help you, if necessary.
For another clue: Go to
http://www.headway.ie/download/pdf/phillips_report.pdf
and scroll down to page 43 or 44, the comparative data on motorist,
motorcyclists, pedestrians and bicyclists.
- Frank Krygowski
Tom Kunich
news:bfb40edc-caa0-480c...@r34g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> If the judge were to hire his own experts, how do you suppose he would
> choose one? Would he prefer the credentials of Stephen M. Scharf, the
> self-proclaimed "world's greatest expert" on bike headlights, helmets,
> and coffee? Or would he prefer those of - say - Dorothy Robinson, a
> PhD research statistician, author of many refereed scientific journal
> articles on this and other statistical topics, and a confirmed helmet
> skeptic?
My CARBON fork collapsed about three months ago and planted me face first
onto the asphalt. The helmet never even touched the ground. The injuries
caused are just beginning to clear up. Thinking that a helmet will give you
much if any protection is completely nuts.
Michael Press
<f44ceba3-df5a-4100...@s13g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
Jay Beattie <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 9:29 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <650b4372-c8cb-439f-9538-cd3bbc61c...@s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 13, 6:36 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 13, 8:26 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > "If you can not answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still
> > > > > call him vile names."
> >
> > > > > — Elbert Hubbard
> >
> > > > "If you can not honestly answer a man's arguments, all is not lost;
> > > > you can put up a website where you misstate his arguments, and pretend
> > > > to refute them. By controlling the website, you can pretend you won."
> >
> > > Is the anti-helmet website all unbiased and fair reporting? It's not
> > > like there is no agenda there. -- Jay Beattie.
> >
> > Yes, there is an agenda. It can be clearly stated.
> > Do you have an objection to that agenda?
>
> Yes. If it is dishonest.
I asked if you have an objection.
Instead you choose to reason on
the hypothesis that the agenda is dishonest.
--
Michael Press
Jeff Liebermann
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Or would he prefer those of - say - Dorothy Robinson, a
>PhD research statistician, author of many refereed scientific journal
>articles on this and other statistical topics, and a confirmed helmet
>skeptic?
Opposition to mandatory helmet laws:
<http://www.cycle-helmets.com/links.html>
Article on New Zealand law by Dorthy Robinson:
<http://www.cycle-helmets.com/AAP2001DLRNZHI.pdf>
(I haven't had time to read it yet).
>(And BTW, I've served as an expert witness, and turned down
>opportunities to do more of the same.)
Ditto, but for computer and wireless cases, through depositions,
reports and one friend of the court mess that was accepted.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Tom Kunich
news:4bed83f5$1...@news4us.nl...
>
> Franks next question will be 'do you wear a helmet walking the street?'
Most head injuries occur around the home. Do you wear a helmet in your
house?
Don Freeman
>
> My CARBON fork collapsed about three months ago and planted me face
> first onto the asphalt. The helmet never even touched the ground. The
> injuries caused are just beginning to clear up. Thinking that a helmet
> will give you much if any protection is completely nuts.
>
It is also a possibility that wearing one may give you false confidence
that it will prevent all serious injuries, and cause you to take more
risk then you would without one. It's that whole "risk homeostasis"
thing.
Don Freeman
<G>
Not only that but most of those injuries occur in the bathroom. I don't
know about you but I'm wearing my water wings when I take a bath from
now on.
SMS
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "Lou Holtman" <lhollaatd...@planet.nl> wrote in message
>> news:4bed83f5$1...@news4us.nl...
>>>
>>> Franks next question will be 'do you wear a helmet walking the
>>> street?'
>>
>> Most head injuries occur around the home. Do you wear a helmet in
>> your house?
>>
>
> <G>
> Not only that but most of those injuries occur in the bathroom. I don't
> know about you but I'm wearing my water wings when I take a bath from
> now on.
Oy, now there will be people at public forums that are discussing the
imposition of MHLs explaining to legislators that if they're going to
pass a helmet law for cyclists, why aren't they passing bathroom helmet
legislation. This will be after they explain about driving, gardening,
and walking helmets. Their argument is that is unless helmet usage is
encouraged or mandated to reduce injuries and fatalities in every human
activity that injury reduction in specific activities is of no value.
JC Dill
> JC Dill wrote:
>>
>> When I see you on a bike (or horse) without a helmet I know how
>> little you value your own brain. It shapes my opinion of you as a
>> person. I am less likely to take anything you say seriously as you
>> are clearly demonstrating poor judgment (in my opinion) about your
>> own well being.
>>
>
> But ff course making encompassing judgments, based on such a small part
> of someone's behavior, gives you a whole shit load of credibility.
We do things like that all the time. When I see someone be rude to a
waiter, I make a judgment about that person. When I see someone be rude
or bigoted towards a person of another race, I make a judgment about
that person. I don't need to know the person for months to come to
conclusions about their behavior when certain small acts can be quite
telling.
Is this 100%? No, nothing is 100%. But if you want to be thought of as
someone who values their brain, wearing a helmet is a good start.
In horseback riding we have some divas who don't like to wear a helmet
because they get "helmet hair". Well, if they value their hair more
than their brains it says volumes about their intellect, doesn't it?
jc
Jay Beattie
Read slowly. I said "if I were a judge." I am a real courtroom
lawyer and, gasp, argue cases to judges and juries, and even courts of
appeals (mostly Ninth Circuit and the Oregon state courts, but
Washington now and then). I recommend that judges ignore OTHER
lawyers all the time, but sometimes they ignore me -- and sometimes
they ignore both sides and get their own experts, as was the case in
the breast implant cases here in Oregon when Judge Jones went out and
got his own experts. See e.g. FRE 706:
Rule 706. Court Appointed Experts
(a) Appointment.
The court may on its own motion or on the motion of any party enter an
order to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed, and
may request the parties to submit nominations. The court may appoint
any expert witnesses agreed upon by the parties, and may appoint
expert witnesses of its own selection. An expert witness shall not be
appointed by the court unless the witness consents to act. A witness
so appointed shall be informed of the witness' duties by the court in
writing, a copy of which shall be filed with the clerk, or at a
conference in which the parties shall have opportunity to participate.
A witness so appointed shall advise the parties of the witness'
findings, if any; the witness' deposition may be taken by any party;
and the witness may be called to testify by the court or any party.
The witness shall be subject to cross-examination by each party,
including a party calling the witness.
(b) Compensation.
Expert witnesses so appointed are entitled to reasonable compensation
in whatever sum the court may allow. The compensation thus fixed is
payable from funds which may be provided by law in criminal cases and
civil actions and proceedings involving just compensation under the
fifth amendment. In other civil actions and proceedings the
compensation shall be paid by the parties in such proportion and at
such time as the court directs, and thereafter charged in like manner
as other costs.
(c) Disclosure of appointment.
In the exercise of its discretion, the court may authorize disclosure
to the jury of the fact that the court appointed the expert witness.
(d) Parties' experts of own selection.
Nothing in this rule limits the parties in calling expert witnesses of
their own selection.
> If the judge were to hire his own experts, how do you suppose he would
> choose one? Would he prefer the credentials of Stephen M. Scharf, the
> self-proclaimed "world's greatest expert" on bike headlights, helmets,
> and coffee? Or would he prefer those of - say - Dorothy Robinson, a
> PhD research statistician, author of many refereed scientific journal
> articles on this and other statistical topics, and a confirmed helmet
> skeptic?
See above. I would advocate for someone who has done primary
biomechanical research -- crash dummy or cadaver work as well as an
epidemiologist to conduct primary review of available data. No agenda
drive, hystical head cases spewing "live free or die" or "if you ride
without a helmet, you will die."
> (And BTW, I've served as an expert witness, and turned down
> opportunities to do more of the same.)
In state court, I could qualify a Dorito as an expert on corn. Not so
much in federal court. Let me know when you are peer reviewed in a
journal of general circulation. -- Jay Beattie.
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
>Don Freeman wrote:
Dear JC,
Do you wear a helmet when you climb a ladder?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Don Freeman
> Don Freeman wrote:
>> JC Dill wrote:
>>>
>>> When I see you on a bike (or horse) without a helmet I know how
>>> little you value your own brain. It shapes my opinion of you as a
>>> person. I am less likely to take anything you say seriously as you
>>> are clearly demonstrating poor judgment (in my opinion) about your
>>> own well being.
>>>
>>
>> But ff course making encompassing judgments, based on such a small
>> part of someone's behavior, gives you a whole shit load of credibility.
>
> We do things like that all the time. When I see someone be rude to a
> waiter, I make a judgment about that person. When I see someone be rude
> or bigoted towards a person of another race, I make a judgment about
> that person. I don't need to know the person for months to come to
> conclusions about their behavior when certain small acts can be quite
> telling.
You are comparing overt behavior towards someone else to passive
behavior. Not a very rational basis on how you qualify your inductive
reasoning.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Jay & Frank,
The notion that a courtroom is somehow a good guide has been amusing
for as long as there have been courtrooms.
INADMISSIBLE, adj. Not competent to be considered. Said of certain
kinds of testimony which juries are supposed to be unfit to be
entrusted with, and which judges, therefore, rule out, even of
proceedings before themselves alone. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible
because the person quoted was unsworn and is not before the court for
examination; yet most momentous actions, military, political,
commercial and of every other kind, are daily undertaken on hearsay
evidence.
There is no religion in the world that has any other basis than
hearsay evidence. Revelation is hearsay evidence; that the Scriptures
are the word of God we have only the testimony of men long dead whose
identity is not clearly established and who are not known to have been
sworn in any sense. Under the rules of evidence as they now exist in
this country, no single assertion in the Bible has in its support any
evidence admissible in a court of law. It cannot be proved that the
battle of Blenheim ever was fought, that there was such as person as
Julius Caesar, such an empire as Assyria.
But as records of courts of justice are admissible, it can easily be
proved that powerful and malevolent magicians once existed and were a
scourge to mankind. The evidence (including confession) upon which
certain women were convicted of witchcraft and executed was without a
flaw; it is still unimpeachable. The judges' decisions based on it
were sound in logic and in law. Nothing in any existing court was ever
more thoroughly proved than the charges of witchcraft and sorcery for
which so many suffered death. If there were no witches, human
testimony and human reason are alike destitute of value.
--Bierce
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
JC Dill
> You will, of course, be flamed for daring to express your opinion and
> experience. And once you defend your viewpoint, the insults will become
> increasingly mean and personal.
Of course! That's the nature of discourse on usenet. People resort to
calling names when they can't make their points any other way.
> Welcome to /wreck/ Usenet.
I've been active on usenet since the mid 1990s. :-)
Thanks for the welcome!
jc
JC Dill
> For another clue: Go to
> http://www.headway.ie/download/pdf/phillips_report.pdf
> and scroll down to page 43 or 44, the comparative data on motorist,
> motorcyclists, pedestrians and bicyclists.
7.4.3 Road users and protective devices
Protective devices exist to protect people from injury. However, this
study demonstrates that more
than 50% of patients in motor vehicle collisions were not wearing a seat
belt and they were more
severely injured than those wearing seat belts (p=0.03). Half the pedal
cyclists and a third of the
motor cyclists were not wearing helmets. Helmets are proven to save
lives. The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration in the USA52 has shown that helmets reduce
the severity of injury and
the likelihood of death by 35-50%. When helmet laws are enacted, usage
increases and cycling related
injuries decrease. There was an 81% increase in fatalities amongst
motorcyclists in Florida when the
mandatory motor cycle helmet law was repealed.
JC Dill
> Do you have any idea of the relative risk per hour?
Check out this TED presentation on how people who aren't statisticians
misuse and misunderstand statistics:
http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_donnelly_shows_how_stats_fool_juries.html
The talk is a bit boring in the beginning, but it gets more interesting
as it goes on. If you are impatient, try opening and reading the
transcript instead.
jc
Jay Beattie
> Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 13, 9:29 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <650b4372-c8cb-439f-9538-cd3bbc61c...@s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 13, 6:36 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On May 13, 8:26 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "If you can not answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still
> > > > > > call him vile names."
>
> > > > > > — Elbert Hubbard
>
> > > > > "If you can not honestly answer a man's arguments, all is not lost;
> > > > > you can put up a website where you misstate his arguments, and pretend
> > > > > to refute them. By controlling the website, you can pretend you won."
>
> > > > Is the anti-helmet website all unbiased and fair reporting? It's not
> > > > like there is no agenda there. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> > > Yes, there is an agenda. It can be clearly stated.
> > > Do you have an objection to that agenda?
>
> > Yes. If it is dishonest.
>
> I asked if you have an objection.
> Instead you choose to reason on
> the hypothesis that the agenda is dishonest.
I object . . . to your elipses of the rest of my post, which clearly
expresses my objection. This isn't some obscure exercise in parsing
words and arguing abstract principles. The web-sites clearly have
agendas -- pro and con helmets. They are not definitional like
Websters. Skewed epidemiology damned breast implants, Bendectin (hey,
an Australian uber-expert made that one up), EMF, DPT (autism/
thimerosol), etc., etc. When it comes from a source with an agenda,
viz., a vested interest in the outcome, I view it with extreme
suspicion. That goes both ways with helmets. -- Jay Beattie.
JC Dill
> Do you wear a helmet when you climb a ladder?
I've never had a ladder spook and fall because of something that
happened elsewhere.
I've never had a ladder fall because a car pulled out in front of me.
People fall from ladders because of mistakes they make in following
basic safety precautions. People often fall from horses and from bikes
from things that occur outside their own control (cars, dogs, etc.).
BTW, I've never worn a helmet when skiing. But I learned to ski in a
different era. Today the slopes are MUCH more crowded. There are many
people who don't take appropriate care to ski safely. When I learned to
ski the odds of a fall being caused by another skier (something outside
of my control) were very low. Today, this risk is much greater. If I
were to go skiing now, I would wear a helmet.
jc
Lou Holtman
> "Lou Holtman" <lhollaatditmaar...@planet.nl> wrote in message
No I don't. I do my own risk management and I don't bother other
people with that. Today I rode alone and didn't wear a helmet. Sunday
I will ride in a grouo and I wear one. Simple.
Lou
JC Dill
> How far does a rider's head fall before it hits the ground from atop a
> typical horse?
>
> How far is the helmet drop in testing?
http://www.equisearch.com/horses_riding_training/tack_apparel/english/safety100703/
Quote:
To earn certification, all protective helmets (including bike, hockey
and equestrian models) are dropped onto a flat anvil from a height of
about six feet, and from several angles and directions. A second anvil
test is designed with the particular risks of the sport in mind.
(end quote)
Horseback and bicycle falls are similar in many ways, different in some
ways. Horseback falls are usually from a greater height, but you are
more likely to land on a soft surface (e.g. sand arena). Horse falls
occur quite often at slow speeds (many falls occur when the horse spooks
when walking or standing). Bike falls occur more often at faster
speeds. When riding a bike you are closer to the ground, but the ground
is usually much harder (pavement, asphalt, concrete, etc.).
The second anvil test addresses the "typical fall" concerns of each sport.
> To put it in bicycle terms, would you refuse to ride a 52-inch
> highwheeler with a modern bicycle helmet?
I would refuse to ride the bike, period. It has no appeal to me.
About 10 years ago I had a fall from an 18.2 hand horse (this is a VERY
tall horse) - a very quiet horse until the incident. (She was spooked
by something entirely unexpected, and then bucked. So I went UP before
I came down.) I landed on my shoulder/back in soft sand but still had
quite an impact with my head. I'm VERY glad I was wearing a helmet even
though I was riding a "quiet" horse at the walk in a soft sand arena.
I wear a helmet every ride, every time.
I'm saying that it's perfectly possible to advocate helmet use without
saying the sport is "incredibly dangerous". It's entirely possible that
wearing a helmet is a good idea even when a sport is quite safe, simply
because of how devastating a brain injury can be, and how easy it is to
help prevent it.
jc
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Frank, it's not the fatalities - it's the brain INJURIES. The ones
that cause lifelong deficits, and longterm suffering. The ones where
sometimes they just WISH they were dead, and the ones that are not
THAT serious - but still definitely severe.
David Scheidt
:On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:52:34 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
:<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Frank doesn't care. He's made up his mind. Facts won't change his
thinking. It's not just him: everyone on either side of this has mad
up his mind, and facts won't change their minds either. Both sides
tell lies when it suits them, and call the other side liars when
it suits them to do so. Neither side is operating in reality.
--
sig 112
cl...@snyder.on.ca
On a construction site? You bet.
JC Dill
> JC Dill <jcdill...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 14 May 2010 09:19:31
> -0700 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> Face it: Helmet promotion is all about fear mongering, portraying ALL
>>> cycling as incredibly dangerous, and pretending cycling is a very
>>> significant source of serious head injuries.
>> This is BS.
>>
>> Helmet promotion is about protecting the brain. An "easy" fall from a
>> bicycle onto pavement can cause serious brain damage if you aren't
>> wearing a helmet. This is not open for dispute - it's a scientific fact.
>
> It may well be a fact that it CAN happen, but where is the evidence
> that it DOES, with sufficient frequency to make protective headgear
> worthwhile?
> You stand more chance of a serious head injury doing many other
> perfectly ordinary things than you do riding a bicycle.
I seriously doubt you have statistics to back up that claim. You almost
certainly don't understand what "more chance" means or how to prove (or
disprove) it.
Recently, on another forum, someone posted a link to bicycle accident
data in Santa Cruz County. Someone else looked at the streets with the
most accidents and claimed those streets were "dangerous". This is
misleading. If you have a street that has a low traffic level with 5
accidents in 1 year, and another street with a high traffic level that
has 10 accidents in 1 year, the low level street may be "more dangerous"
when you consider accidents as a percent of the total traffic.
The raw number of accidents alone is a relatively useless piece of data.
Until you know how many people participate in an activity you can't
make any useful judgments about "how dangerous" or risky the activity is.
I refer you to the TED talk I linked to in another post so you can get a
sense of how easy it is to misunderstand statistics and come to entirely
erroneous conclusions about odds, risks, etc.
jc
SMS
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> Face it: Helmet promotion is all about fear mongering, portraying ALL
>> cycling as incredibly dangerous, and pretending cycling is a very
>> significant source of serious head injuries.
>
> This is BS.
>
> Helmet promotion is about protecting the brain. An "easy" fall from a
> bicycle onto pavement can cause serious brain damage if you aren't
> wearing a helmet. This is not open for dispute - it's a scientific fact.
This is true. Still, the chances of such a fall are small enough that to
pass judgement on a person solely because they choose to take a bit of
extra risk in their lives is really not fair.
I sometimes don't wear a helmet. It's a small extra risk. As the
evidence regarding bicycle helmets mounts I ditch the helmet less, but
sometimes for a ride over to a friends house a few blocks away I don't
bother with it.
> You need only to look in the mirror to see someone who is spreading
> distortion, misleading information, whose reaction isn't based on
> rational evaluation, and who harbors prejudices.
If only he would simply admit, "I don't like wearing a helmet, and even
though all the evidence proves that if I'm in a head impact crash I'll
be much better off with one, I'm willingly going to take that risk."
Instead he engages in the behavior you not above. Just who does he think
is actually believing any of his stuff? Four people on r.b.t.?
Bill Baka
> JC Dill wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> Helmet promotion is about protecting the brain. An "easy" fall from a
>> bicycle onto pavement can cause serious brain damage if you aren't
>> wearing a helmet. This is not open for dispute - it's a scientific fact.
Fact yes, but I make it a point not to fall on a paved road.
>
> This is true. Still, the chances of such a fall are small enough that to
> pass judgement on a person solely because they choose to take a bit of
> extra risk in their lives is really not fair.
>
> I sometimes don't wear a helmet. It's a small extra risk. As the
> evidence regarding bicycle helmets mounts I ditch the helmet less, but
> sometimes for a ride over to a friends house a few blocks away I don't
> bother with it.
I carry a real helmet with me when I intend to do some off road riding
and that helmet is not the half baked bicycle helmet. I use a ski helmet
which is kind of a cross between a bike helmet and a full blown
motorcycle helmet. It protects the back of my head, which as anyone with
some human anatomy knows is the most critical part of the brain.
I don't wear it until I get into the mountain trails since if I get hit
by a semi (my biggest problem around here) a helmet won't matter much.
I also rode my motorcycle at 130 MPH cruise speed with no helmet, but
only because at that speed the drag of the helmet wanted to tear my head
off. Untangling my hair was a major hassle back then, but if you go down
at 130+, something bad will happen to all of you, not just your head.
Bill Baka
JC Dill
> This is true. Still, the chances of such a fall are small enough that to
> pass judgement on a person solely because they choose to take a bit of
> extra risk in their lives is really not fair.
Life isn't fair. People pass judgement on matters like this all the
time. Part of being an adult is learning to get used to it.
People pass judgement all the time based on gender (I'm female, for
those of you who didn't already know). It's not fair, but I can't
change it (their judgements) either. I have to deal with it every day.
> I sometimes don't wear a helmet. It's a small extra risk. As the
> evidence regarding bicycle helmets mounts I ditch the helmet less, but
> sometimes for a ride over to a friends house a few blocks away I don't
> bother with it.
Just because you aren't going very far doesn't somehow make the trip
less risky. Most auto accidents happen within 5 miles of home.
>> You need only to look in the mirror to see someone who is spreading
>> distortion, misleading information, whose reaction isn't based on
>> rational evaluation, and who harbors prejudices.
>
> If only he would simply admit, "I don't like wearing a helmet, and even
> though all the evidence proves that if I'm in a head impact crash I'll
> be much better off with one, I'm willingly going to take that risk."
There's a guy on one of our horse forums who says just that. I don't
agree with his choice, but I admire his willingness to make his stand.
> Instead he engages in the behavior you not above. Just who does he think
> is actually believing any of his stuff? Four people on r.b.t.?
He's obviously preaching to his choir. We don't have to let his
statements stand uncontested. I wouldn't bother contesting claims like
these except that there are always new people lurking about.
jc
JC Dill
> On 05/14/2010 01:19 PM, SMS wrote:
>> JC Dill wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> Helmet promotion is about protecting the brain. An "easy" fall from a
>>> bicycle onto pavement can cause serious brain damage if you aren't
>>> wearing a helmet. This is not open for dispute - it's a scientific fact.
>
> Fact yes, but I make it a point not to fall on a paved road.
There's a reason these things are called accidents, and not on-purposes.
jc
Clive George
> Just because you aren't going very far doesn't somehow make the trip
> less risky. Most auto accidents happen within 5 miles of home.
It's amusing to see you writing this only a couple of minutes after
telling us that abusing statistics in that way is wrong.
JC Dill
I'm not "abusing statistics". I said that just because you are traveling
a short distance doesn't make the trip less risky, which is true.
The point I'm making is that the thought "since I'm not going very far,
I don't have to worry about safety" is misguided. The reason most auto
accidents happen close to home is that most miles are driven close to
home. This doesn't mean you are "more likely" to get in an accident
close to home, and you will notice that I didn't say that.
jc
SMS
<snip>
> Frank doesn't care. He's made up his mind. Facts won't change his
> thinking. It's not just him: everyone on either side of this has mad
> up his mind, and facts won't change their minds either.
Not true. Many of us disdained helmets for years until we read all the
research on the subject.
I would say those that accept flawed interpretations and
rationalizations of all the studies are allowing themselves to be misled
because they lack critical thinking skills, and naturally they don't
like it when the flaws are pointed out to them. These are the same
people that think that they're getting news from Fox.
Bill Sornson
> "Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bfb40edc-caa0-480c...@r34g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> If the judge were to hire his own experts, how do you suppose he
>> would choose one? Would he prefer the credentials of Stephen M.
>> Scharf, the self-proclaimed "world's greatest expert" on bike
>> headlights, helmets, and coffee? Or would he prefer those of - say
>> - Dorothy Robinson, a PhD research statistician, author of many
>> refereed scientific journal articles on this and other statistical
>> topics, and a confirmed helmet skeptic?
>
> first onto the asphalt. The helmet never even touched the ground. The
> injuries caused are just beginning to clear up. Thinking that a
> helmet will give you much if any protection is completely nuts.
Ah, because you happened to take a fall in which your helmet was not
involved, that proves that helmets /in general/ won't provide "much if any"
protection, period.
NOT HARD TO CATCH THE FLAW IN THAT "THINKING"! LOL
Bill Sornson
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> My CARBON fork collapsed about three months ago and planted me face
>> first onto the asphalt. The helmet never even touched the ground. The
>> injuries caused are just beginning to clear up. Thinking that a
>> helmet will give you much if any protection is completely nuts.
>>
>
> confidence that it will prevent all serious injuries, and cause you
> to take more risk then you would without one. It's that whole "risk
> homeostasis" thing.
A lot of stuff is "a possibility". Doesn't make it true or reasonable.
HTH
Tom Kunich
news:4bed...@news.x-privat.org...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> My CARBON fork collapsed about three months ago and planted me face
>> first onto the asphalt. The helmet never even touched the ground. The
>> injuries caused are just beginning to clear up. Thinking that a
>> helmet will give you much if any protection is completely nuts.
>
> Ah, because you happened to take a fall in which your helmet was not
> involved, that proves that helmets /in general/ won't provide "much if
> any" protection, period.
I was safety director of the American Federation of Motorcyclists. Later I
was safety director for a couple of bicycle groups. I have always been
pro-helmet. However, it is notable that perhaps it isn't easy to design a
helmet that doesn't overheat a cyclist and yet provides ample protection.
> NOT HARD TO CATCH THE FLAW IN THAT "THINKING"! LOL
I believe that there's a flaw in your thinking.
SMS
> Phil W Lee wrote:
<snip>
>> You stand more chance of a serious head injury doing many other
>> perfectly ordinary things than you do riding a bicycle.
>
> I seriously doubt you have statistics to back up that claim. You almost
> certainly don't understand what "more chance" means or how to prove (or
> disprove) it.
<snip>
> I refer you to the TED talk I linked to in another post so you can get a
> sense of how easy it is to misunderstand statistics and come to entirely
> erroneous conclusions about odds, risks, etc.
Those that talk about how it's possible to get a head injury doing
things other than riding a bicycle are not as clueless as they make
themselves out to be in this forum. They say these things for other
reasons--they are just pretending to misunderstand.
SMS
LOL. Several people in this group, including Tom, would benefit from
"http://www.amazon.com/Language-Argument-Larry-W-Burton/dp/0618917551".
At the very least if they followed the precepts in the book the level of
discussion in this forum would be more logical.
Frank Krygowski
> On May 14, 10:42 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > If the judge were to hire his own experts, how do you suppose he would
> > choose one? Would he prefer the credentials of Stephen M. Scharf, the
> > self-proclaimed "world's greatest expert" on bike headlights, helmets,
> > and coffee? Or would he prefer those of - say - Dorothy Robinson, a
> > PhD research statistician, author of many refereed scientific journal
> > articles on this and other statistical topics, and a confirmed helmet
> > skeptic?
>
> biomechanical research -- crash dummy or cadaver work as well as an
> epidemiologist to conduct primary review of available data. No agenda
> drive, hystical head cases spewing "live free or die" or "if you ride
> without a helmet, you will die."
Fine. And you'll note, I've been using neither of those arguments.
What I have been concentrating on is 1) epidemiology of serious (or
fatal) head injuries; and 2) analysis of both helmet-promoting and
helmet-skeptic research.
Epidemiology data tells us that cycling is NOT a significant source of
serious head injuries; that at least 98% of serious head injuries have
other sources, and that even on a per-hour or per-mile basis, cycling
is not unusually risky.
Helmet promoting research is almost entirely based on case-control
studies with demonstrable bias. Time-series, large-population data
shows that helmets are nowhere near as protective as claimed.
I've cited data on all the above, countless times. I can do it again,
if you weren't paying attention. I don't recall either you or Scharf
citing data that proves me wrong; in fact, Scharf almost never cites
any real data at all, and I'm certainly not the only person pointing
that out.
So don't mis-characterize my position or my arguments, please.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
Did you notice the difference in severity between cyclists and all
other groups? Did you notice the difference in the number of cases?
Are you really claiming that cyclists need helmets as much as the
other groups?
And, BTW, have you yet looked up the percentage of U.S. head injury
fatalities that are cyclists?
- Frank Krygowski
Don Freeman
Isn't that what your entire reasoning is based on? Possibilities?
--
-Don
www.cosmoslair.com
Cthulhu Saves!!! (In case he needs a midnight snack)
Bill Sornson
Care to retract that?
Bill "anecdotes only acceptable when conforming to one's agenda, apparently"
S.
Bill Sornson
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Don Freeman wrote:
>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> My CARBON fork collapsed about three months ago and planted me face
>>>> first onto the asphalt. The helmet never even touched the ground.
>>>> The injuries caused are just beginning to clear up. Thinking that a
>>>> helmet will give you much if any protection is completely nuts.
>>>>
>>> It is also a possibility that wearing one may give you false
>>> confidence that it will prevent all serious injuries, and cause you
>>> to take more risk then you would without one. It's that whole "risk
>>> homeostasis" thing.
>>
>> A lot of stuff is "a possibility". Doesn't make it true or
>> reasonable. HTH
>>
>
> Isn't that what your entire reasoning is based on? Possibilities?
I knew it wouldn't help.
Tom Kunich
> nuts."
>
> Care to retract that?
I hate to point this out but the fact is that helmets don't do much for
motorcycles or bicyclists because they don't offer any significant
protection.
Bill Sornson
You really should re-think this nonsensical "strategy" of yours. It only
undermines your argument(s).
Tim McNamara
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
More than believe you, Steven.
Bill Sornson
Nice editing. You BASED that statement on your unfortunate fall, during
which your helmet did not prevent certain injuries.
I suffered a similar fall nearly two years ago, and my helmet DID prevent
certain injuries (as evidenced by extensive damage to the outer shell and
complete shattering of the inner foam core).
Therefore, "Thinking that a helmet /WON'T/ give you much if any protection
is completely nuts."
Bill "now snip away if it makes you feel better" S.
Tim McNamara
JC Dill <jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > How far does a rider's head fall before it hits the ground from
> > atop a typical horse?
> >
> > How far is the helmet drop in testing?
>
> http://www.equisearch.com/horses_riding_training/tack_apparel/english/
> safety10 0703/
>
> Quote: To earn certification, all protective helmets (including bike,
> hockey and equestrian models) are dropped onto a flat anvil from a
> height of about six feet, and from several angles and directions. A
> second anvil test is designed with the particular risks of the sport
> in mind. (end quote)
>
> Horseback and bicycle falls are similar in many ways, different in
> some ways. Horseback falls are usually from a greater height, but
> you are more likely to land on a soft surface (e.g. sand arena).
> Horse falls occur quite often at slow speeds (many falls occur when
> the horse spooks when walking or standing). Bike falls occur more
> often at faster speeds. When riding a bike you are closer to the
> ground, but the ground is usually much harder (pavement, asphalt,
> concrete, etc.).
>
> The second anvil test addresses the "typical fall" concerns of each
> sport.
Uh-huh. Except that it doesn't. The "tests" used to "certify" bicycle
helmets do not even remotely approximate the real world. The purpose of
the testing is to facilitate the sale of product, not to protect brains.
I've known three riders to get tossed from a horse. Two were wearing
riding helmets. One ultimately died from a traumatic brain injury; the
other suffered a neck and brain injury and severe motor impairments.
The third was not wearing a helmet and suffered no injuries. An n of 3
is too small to make judgments as to whether an equestrian helmet is of
value, of course, but if said helmet is only tested at forces that that
are 1/2 or less than what would be seen in the real world, that is even
less useful than a bicycle helmet.
I've known dozens of bike riders who've had crashes with and without
helmets. One (helmet wearer) suffered a brain injury, and he was struck
head-on by a dump truck as he was descending a hill at about 40 mph. He
was killed just instantly. I've seen more bike riders die from heart
attacks while riding that have suffered head injuries.
Why wear a helmet that is not actually designed to deal effectively with
the forces involved? On the off chance it *might* provide adequate
protection?
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > For another clue: Go to
> >http://www.headway.ie/download/pdf/phillips_report.pdf
> > and scroll down to page 43 or 44, the comparative data on motorist,
> > motorcyclists, pedestrians and bicyclists.
>
> 7.4.3 Road users and protective devices
> Protective devices exist to protect people from injury. However, this
> study demonstrates that more
> than 50% of patients in motor vehicle collisions were not wearing a seat
> belt and they were more
> severely injured than those wearing seat belts (p=0.03). Half the pedal
> cyclists and a third of the
> motor cyclists were not wearing helmets. Helmets are proven to save
> lives. The National Highway
> Traffic Safety Administration in the USA52 has shown that helmets reduce
> the severity of injury and
> the likelihood of death by 35-50%. When helmet laws are enacted, usage
> increases and cycling related
> injuries decrease. There was an 81% increase in fatalities amongst
> motorcyclists in Florida when the
> mandatory motor cycle helmet law was repealed.
If you wish to discuss motorcycle helmets, it would be better to do
that in a motorcycle discussion group. Read this article before you
do, though:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes-life-magazine/1999/0503/041.html
If you wish to discuss seat belts, that's probably better done in an
automotive discussion group. But I'll note that the design standards
and certification tests of seat belts are quite realistic, including
running actual cars with crash test dummies into solid walls at speed.
The certification test for a bike helmet involves no crash test
dummy. It involves only a magnesium model of a decapitated human
head, no body attached, falling roughly six feet. The impact speed is
thus roughly 14 mph. There is no test for rotational aspects, despite
the fact that rotational acceleration of the brain (as with a boxer's
uppercut or roundhouse hit) are known to be especially productive of
brain injury.
This is probably why, when large populations have adopted bike helmet
use, there's been no significant improvement in serious brain injury.
See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html for just a little data on
this.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> On May 14, 11:46 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <f44ceba3-df5a-4100-9f59-892dbfc0a...@s13g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
> > Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 13, 9:29 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <650b4372-c8cb-439f-9538-cd3bbc61c...@s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 13, 6:36 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On May 13, 8:26 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > "If you can not answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still
> > > > > > > call him vile names."
>
> > > > > > > — Elbert Hubbard
>
> > > > > > "If you can not honestly answer a man's arguments, all is not lost;
> > > > > > you can put up a website where you misstate his arguments, and pretend
> > > > > > to refute them. By controlling the website, you can pretend you won."
>
> > > > > Is the anti-helmet website all unbiased and fair reporting? It's not
> > > > > like there is no agenda there. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> > > > Yes, there is an agenda. It can be clearly stated.
> > > > Do you have an objection to that agenda?
>
> > > Yes. If it is dishonest.
>
> > I asked if you have an objection.
> > Instead you choose to reason on
> > the hypothesis that the agenda is dishonest.
>
> I object . . . to your elipses of the rest of my post, which clearly
> expresses my objection. This isn't some obscure exercise in parsing
> words and arguing abstract principles. The web-sites clearly have
> agendas -- pro and con helmets. They are not definitional like
> Websters. Skewed epidemiology damned breast implants, Bendectin (hey,
> an Australian uber-expert made that one up), EMF, DPT (autism/
> thimerosol), etc., etc. When it comes from a source with an agenda,
> viz., a vested interest in the outcome, I view it with extreme
> suspicion. That goes both ways with helmets.
Jay, when you argue in a courtroom, YOU have a vested interest in the
outcome. So does the other lawyer. You simply cannot pretend that a
vested interest makes an argument less valid.
And speaking of vested interest: When Bell Sports acts not just as a
sponsor, but as a _partner_ to Safe Kids, does it have a vested
interest? When Safe Kids officials accept that money, then publish
pro-helmet information and lobby for mandatory helmets, do they have a
vested interest? When Buycycling Magazine does lots of helmet ads,
and refuses to show helmetless riders, does it have a vested interest?
What would be the vested interest of those publishing data showing
that cycling is not particularly risky? When Paul Scuffham wrote the
paper examining all the cyclist hospitalizations in New Zealand, and
found no improvement in head injury percentages despite soaring helmet
use, he was working for their road safety bureau, and he was expected
to defend the upcoming helmet legislation!
Admittedly, there are those who have been duped into becoming pro-
helmet missionaries for free, by the pro-helmet propaganda out of
agencies like Safe Kids. But have you thought to follow the money?
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> >
>
> > To put it in bicycle terms, would you refuse to ride a 52-inch
> > highwheeler with a modern bicycle helmet?
>
> I would refuse to ride the bike, period. It has no appeal to me.
A convenient answer.
Would you also refuse to accept a ride in a pre-1990 car? One with
only belts, no air bags? Because cars of that era have head injury
rates (per hour) almost identical to bike riding, according to one
paper I've cited in the past. If you'd refuse that ride, what other
activities do you avoid because of head injury risk?
Personally, I've ridden a highwheeler bike several times. It was
great fun. I've also ridden in a Model A Ford. I was on a ladder
several times today, getting up on the roof and cleaning gutters. I
took a shower this morning, I descended stairs many times, I took a
long walk, including walking in a forest preserve. (Roots! Rocks!)
And in fact I talked to my elderly neighbor during the walk, and
learned she was concussed inside a car just six years ago (despite
modern safety devices) and has suffered migraines ever since. She
joins several people I know who have been head injured in motor
vehicles. She didn't join those several people I once knew, who were
killed during motor vehicle rides.
Most of those activities have injured people I know (except the Model
A and the highwheeler). For which of those activities _should_ a
helmet have been worn? And what rational method do you use to judge
that?
- Frank Krygowski
SMS
> I've seen more bike riders die from heart
> attacks while riding that have suffered head injuries.
> Why wear a helmet that is not actually designed to deal effectively with
> the forces involved? On the off chance it *might* provide adequate
> protection?
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> Frank, it's not the fatalities - it's the brain INJURIES. The ones
> that cause lifelong deficits, and longterm suffering. The ones where
> sometimes they just WISH they were dead, and the ones that are not
> THAT serious - but still definitely severe.
The main reason I focus on fatalities is that they tend to be
indisputable. An alternative term that's often used, "head injuries,"
is sometimes deliberately deceptive. For example, the Thompson &
Rivara case-control study that claimed 85% reduction in "head
injuries" used that term to include minor scrapes, bruises, scratches
and cuts. Yes, cut ears were literally counted as "head injuries."
Similarly, "brain injury" has sometimes been inflated to include
anyone the least bit dazed after an event.
But if you prefer to focus on significant (i.e. consequential) brain
injuries, we can do that. I've corresponded with one brain injury
rehab specialist in these discussion groups. I also had a long
conversation during a bike ride with another brain injury rehab
specialist. These are people whose entire job is rehabilitating such
people. I pointed out that national data indicates only a tiny
percentage of their patients must be cyclists.
The guy on this discussion group finally agreed that he'd never
treated a cyclist, and just dropped out of the conversation. The
woman on the bike ride admitted that in seven years of full-time work,
she'd seen only one cyclist, "and he was a racer" - which means, he
was very likely wearing a helmet at the time of his injury.
If you have data showing that more than, say, 2% of the nations
consequential brain injuries come from cycling, it would be news to
me. I _know_ cyclists are fewer than 1% of the brain injury
fatalities.
- Frank Krygowski
JC Dill
> On May 14, 4:04 pm, JC Dill <jcdill.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> To put it in bicycle terms, would you refuse to ride a 52-inch
>>> highwheeler with a modern bicycle helmet?
>> I would refuse to ride the bike, period. It has no appeal to me.
>
> A convenient answer.
>
> Would you also refuse to accept a ride in a pre-1990 car? One with
> only belts, no air bags? Because cars of that era have head injury
> rates (per hour) almost identical to bike riding, according to one
> paper I've cited in the past.
Please post that citation.
jc
JC Dill
> On May 14, 4:09 pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>
>> Frank, it's not the fatalities - it's the brain INJURIES. The ones
>> that cause lifelong deficits, and longterm suffering. The ones where
>> sometimes they just WISH they were dead, and the ones that are not
>> THAT serious - but still definitely severe.
>
> The main reason I focus on fatalities is that they tend to be
> indisputable. An alternative term that's often used, "head injuries,"
> is sometimes deliberately deceptive. For example, the Thompson &
> Rivara case-control study that claimed 85% reduction in "head
> injuries" used that term to include minor scrapes, bruises, scratches
> and cuts. Yes, cut ears were literally counted as "head injuries."
> Similarly, "brain injury" has sometimes been inflated to include
> anyone the least bit dazed after an event.
Being dazed is a sign of a concussion - a brain injury. Several mild
cumulative concussions can add up to serious brain malfunction. So it's
quite important for someone who is "just dazed" to understand that their
brain has suffered an injury and they need to be extra careful to avoid
a subsequent (cumulative) injury.
Anyone who thinks it's not a serious injury because the person was "just
a bit dazed" is misguided. It's still a brain injury.
I wonder, Frank, how many times you have been "just a bit dazed" after a
fall.
jc
SMS
> I wonder, Frank, how many times you have been "just a bit dazed" after a
> fall.
That's too easy.
JC Dill
> JC Dill <jcdill...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 14 May 2010 13:16:04
> -0700 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Phil W Lee wrote:
>>> JC Dill <jcdill...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 14 May 2010 09:19:31
>>> -0700 the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Face it: Helmet promotion is all about fear mongering, portraying ALL
>>>>> cycling as incredibly dangerous, and pretending cycling is a very
>>>>> significant source of serious head injuries.
>>>> This is BS.
>>>>
>>>> Helmet promotion is about protecting the brain. An "easy" fall from a
>>>> bicycle onto pavement can cause serious brain damage if you aren't
>>>> wearing a helmet. This is not open for dispute - it's a scientific fact.
>>> It may well be a fact that it CAN happen, but where is the evidence
>>> that it DOES, with sufficient frequency to make protective headgear
>>> worthwhile?
>>> You stand more chance of a serious head injury doing many other
>>> perfectly ordinary things than you do riding a bicycle.
>> I seriously doubt you have statistics to back up that claim. You almost
>> certainly don't understand what "more chance" means or how to prove (or
>> disprove) it.
>
> although helmet promoters tend to pretend they don't exist.
> You stand a higher chance per hour of suffering a head injury as a
> pedestrian, equestrian or motorist than as a cyclist.
> Taking a shower is particularly dangerous!
If these statistics are readily available then you will have no
difficulty in locating and citing them.
> All the countries with high use of cycle helmets are subject to worse
> rates of cyclist head injury, compared to those where helmet use is
> low.
That's a bogus statistic. You need to compare like to like. Countries
where people ride bikes at slow speeds for transportation in
bike-friendly transportation routes can't be compared 1-to-1 with
countries where bike riding is much less common, done at higher speeds
over longer distances, and in close proximity to cars with little
bike-friendly transportation routes.
> And increasing helmet use, particularly when it is done by means of
> compulsion, makes things worse.
Cite?
The BEST way to evaluate helmet use is to compare before/after when
helmet use changes in a given place. The studies I've seen show that as
helmet use goes up (often after laws are passed requiring helmets) the
rate of brain injury goes down.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17579327
Do you have any data that refutes this?
jc
Clive George
> I wonder, Frank, how many times you have been "just a bit dazed" after a
> fall.
Would it be possible to have this argument without this tiresome old
nonsense being brought out?
It's grossly insulting, and demonstrates a closed mind. If you could
stick to the facts rather than the ancient and well worn path of insult,
it would be a refreshing change.
AMuzi
>> Franks next question will be 'do you wear a helmet walking the street?'
Tom Kunich wrote:
> Most head injuries occur around the home. Do you wear a helmet in your
> house?
If you do, bathtub is #1, stairs next.
(bicycles far down the list)
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
JC Dill
> JC Dill <jcdill...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 14 May 2010 14:02:24
> -0700 the perfect time to write:
>
>>> On 05/14/2010 01:19 PM, SMS wrote:
>>>> JC Dill wrote:
>>>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> bicycle onto pavement can cause serious brain damage if you aren't
>>>>> wearing a helmet. This is not open for dispute - it's a scientific fact.
>> There's a reason these things are called accidents, and not on-purposes.
>>
> And there is a thing called caution, which is undermined by the belief
> that you are less vulnerable than you would otherwise be.
You assume that wearing a helmet makes people feel less vulnerable. For
many, the act of putting on a helmet *reminds* them how vulnerable they
are, and makes them more cautious rather than more reckless.
Further, head injury rates go DOWN when helmet laws are enacted:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17579327
> If you don't at least make the effort to take into account risk
> compensation factors, you are coming to a battle of wits unarmed.
That's not entirely true. One can make valid broad generalizations even
when ignoring small side effects because the side effects are just that,
small, and don't materially effect the general outcome.
For example, we don't need to account for changes in hair styles over
the years. Sure, it might affect injury rates (beard or pony-tail got
caught on a branch, leading to a wreck) or severity (beard protected
against road rash, pony-tail got caught in the spokes during the fall),
but it can't make *that* much of a difference in the long run.
jc
Jay Beattie
I'm obviously going to make the argument that is most favorable for my
client and advocate for my view of the law and facts. I do have a
vested interest, and I expect both the judge and the jury to be
skeptical until I prove my credibility and my witnesses prove their
credibility. If I over state an argument or misstate the evidence, I
am doomed.
>
> And speaking of vested interest: When Bell Sports acts not just as a
> sponsor, but as a _partner_ to Safe Kids, does it have a vested
> interest? When Safe Kids officials accept that money, then publish
> pro-helmet information and lobby for mandatory helmets, do they have a
> vested interest? When Buycycling Magazine does lots of helmet ads,
> and refuses to show helmetless riders, does it have a vested interest?
Absolutely. It cuts both ways.
> What would be the vested interest of those publishing data showing
> that cycling is not particularly risky? When Paul Scuffham wrote the
> paper examining all the cyclist hospitalizations in New Zealand, and
> found no improvement in head injury percentages despite soaring helmet
> use, he was working for their road safety bureau, and he was expected
> to defend the upcoming helmet legislation!
I leave it to well-trained epidemiologists to discuss the validity of
Scuffham's research. And I thought he did determine that the NZ helmet
law resulted in a 19% reduction in head injuries. Is that not the
case? See Scuffham P, Alsop J, Cryer C, Langley JD. Head injuries to
bicycles and the New Zealand bicycle helmet law. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 2000;32, p565-573. Have you already explained to us that
the "authors' conclusions" are not in fact the author's conclusions?
-- Jay Beattie.
SMS
<snip>
>> All the countries with high use of cycle helmets are subject to worse
>> rates of cyclist head injury, compared to those where helmet use is
>> low.
>
> That's a bogus statistic.
The problem is that some people look at statistics but they have no
understanding of what they mean. They are the legal prey of those that
seek to mislead them.
This topic is covered in myth 29, "http://tinyurl.com/bhmyth29" though
it should be pointed out that it's a false statement on the surface.
What he meant to say was "_Some_ countries with high use of cycle
helmets are subject to worse rates of cyclist head injury, compared to
_some_ where helmet use is low."
Frank Krygowski
Robinson, D.L., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet Laws, 1996, Accident
Analysis Prevention, Vol 28, pp. 463 - 475
- Frank Krygowski
SMS
<snip>
> You assume that wearing a helmet makes people feel less vulnerable. For
> many, the act of putting on a helmet *reminds* them how vulnerable they
> are, and makes them more cautious rather than more reckless.
In reality there's no evidence that bicycle helmets make riders less
cautious because of the protective effect, or more cautious because it
remind them of their vulnerability.
If it made them less cautious, and you believe the incorrect statements
that helmets have no protective effect, then what is the explanation for
the decrease in injuries and fatalities as helmet usage goes up?
OTOH, if it made them more cautious you would see proclamation of why
the reason that injury rates go down as helmet usage goes up is because
of risk compensation. Alas that would require that they actually admit
the facts regarding injury rates and helmet usage, which I don't think
you'll see them admitting any time soon. Apparently some of their false
premises are more important to protect than others.
> That's not entirely true. One can make valid broad generalizations even
> when ignoring small side effects because the side effects are just that,
> small, and don't materially effect the general outcome.
This is correct, especially in cases where there is no evidence of "risk
compensation."
Michael Press
<043b94de-2e2f-4dcf...@y18g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Jay Beattie <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
I did not read any further, because you started out
from a basis that the web site is dishonest. I expected
you to answer the question I asked by quoting from the
web site and stating your objections based on evidence.
You brought up the matters of bias, agenda, and
dishonesty so it is up to you to support your suspicions.
--
Michael Press
Bill Sornson
> I wonder, Frank, how many times you have been "just a bit dazed"
> after a fall.
Frank's above falling.
Bill "it's Googlable" S.
Frank Krygowski
Of course it is. In very much the same way that a cut to the ear is a
"head injury" - that is, an injury above the neck. Both are used to
exaggerate the hazards of cycling.
Those who wring their hands at any and all signs of even tiny injuries
must want a very sterile world; because to be consistent, they must
argue against things like baseball (because both my sone and my
daughter's high school boyfriend were knocked briefly unconscious
playing baseball). And of course, boxing, because the object is to
daze your opponent. And football, even with helmets; read the latest
warnings about that. And soccer, because some are crying that heading
the ball causes damage. And I'm sure wrestling and judo must be
similarly damaging.
Then there are playgrounds, both with and without padded ground
surfaces. (How did we survive??) And trees - my brother broke his
leg falling from one in our backyard. And crossing the street - the
cause of over 5000 pedestrian fatalities in the US in a typical year.
(Crosswalks are no protection, of course. That's where most of those
deaths occur.) Rock climbing? Surely insane. Swimming? Four times
the fatality rate of cycling, and a significant source of permanent
brain damage, through near-drownings.
And, believe it or not, some people are actually foolish enough to
climb up on large, unpredictable animals. After Christopher Reeve,
you'd think they'd know better, but no...
> I wonder, Frank, how many times you have been "just a bit dazed" after a
> fall.
Well, I recall slipping on ice on my driveway after taking out the
garbage one winter. The fall was as sudden as were the judo throws I
experienced in college. I landed full on my side, with my pelvis just
inches away from a raised corner of a concrete sidewalk. I was
literally shocked by the experience, especially when I realized that
the concrete could have broken my pelvis. But I got up and walked
into the kitchen - and began shaking, quite uncontrollably.
However, my head never came close to the ground.
From that I learned that even walking can be dangerous. But still, I
guess I don't meet with your approval; because that did not tempt me
to wear a helmet while walking.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
That's an interesting example of vested interest, indeed. Here's the
back story.
As I said, in Scuffham, P.A., Langley, J. D., Trends in Cycling
Injuries in New Zealand Under Voluntary Helmet Use, 1997, Accident
Analysis and Prevention, Vol 29, No 1, Scuffham examined all available
hospital records of hospitalized cyclists in New Zealand from 1980 to
(IIRC) 1992. His intent was to capture the effect of helmet use
rising to as high as 90% (from about 25% for kids) within about two
years, due to intense promotion about the upcoming helmet law.
(Similar rates of rise, but to somewhat lower peak values, occurred
for teens and adults. Scuffham examined each group's data
separately.)
He reasoned that with the sudden jump in helmet use, there should be a
sudden decrease in the percentage of hospitalized cyclists who were in
because of head injury. He expected dramatic proof that the helmets
did what was predicted. Indeed, the road safety bureau he worked for
expected that, which is why they funded the research - to validate the
law for which they'd helped lobby.
But Scuffham found no such thing. In the paper, he detailed the wide
variety of math techniques he tried on the data, but no matter; the
graphs of head injured percentage vs. time are clear. For all three
age groups, the percentage hospitalized due to HI showed a gradual,
essentially linear decline from 1980 onwards, even when no helmets
were worn. But the rate of decline didn't change a whit when the
helmet use suddenly soared.
Scuffham concluded that the helmets were having no detectable benefit,
and stated so in his conclusion. The only reduction was due to the
time coefficient in his equations. Even when helmet use was
consistently zero (from 1980 till the late 1980s) the percentage head
injured dropped with time in exactly the same way as when the helmet
surge appeared.
Now let's talk about vested interest. Can you imagine what things
were like at work for this guy? His agency worked strongly to get the
laws passed, but with even 90% helmet use as the law approached, no
benefit was present - and he was telling the world!
In a couple years, he came out with another paper, the one you cited.
And surprise! In that paper, he was now able to demonstrate
significant helmet benefit! He compared data points a bit before and
soon after the helmet law, and sure enough, there was a drop in
percentage head injured!
Had helmets started working? Hardly! Instead, he had cherry-picked
data points (omitting the early '80s data) and most important, HE HAD
ENTIRELY OMITTED THE TIME COEFFICIENT HE'D PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED.
Mathematically, he found a way to hide the effect of time which was
obvious in his larger data set, and attribute all the reduction to
helmets
Robinson published a scathing rebuttal in the same journal, calling
him on his duplicity, with mathematical details. (Unfortunately, few
here would understand the math arguments.) And AFAIK, that's where
the matter sits. But as I said, it is an excellent example of the
effect of vested interest.
Perhaps he consulted with tobacco executives on strategy?
- Frank Krygowski
cl...@snyder.on.ca
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 14, 3:19 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>> On May 14, 10:42 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > If the judge were to hire his own experts, how do you suppose he would
>> > choose one? Would he prefer the credentials of Stephen M. Scharf, the
>> > self-proclaimed "world's greatest expert" on bike headlights, helmets,
>> > and coffee? Or would he prefer those of - say - Dorothy Robinson, a
>> > PhD research statistician, author of many refereed scientific journal
>> > articles on this and other statistical topics, and a confirmed helmet
>> > skeptic?
>>
>> See above. I would advocate for someone who has done primary
>> biomechanical research -- crash dummy or cadaver work as well as an
>> epidemiologist to conduct primary review of available data. No agenda
>> drive, hystical head cases spewing "live free or die" or "if you ride
>> without a helmet, you will die."
>
>Fine. And you'll note, I've been using neither of those arguments.
>What I have been concentrating on is 1) epidemiology of serious (or
>fatal) head injuries; and 2) analysis of both helmet-promoting and
>helmet-skeptic research.
>
>Epidemiology data tells us that cycling is NOT a significant source of
>serious head injuries; that at least 98% of serious head injuries have
>other sources, and that even on a per-hour or per-mile basis, cycling
>is not unusually risky.
>
>Helmet promoting research is almost entirely based on case-control
>studies with demonstrable bias. Time-series, large-population data
>shows that helmets are nowhere near as protective as claimed.
>
>I've cited data on all the above, countless times. I can do it again,
>if you weren't paying attention. I don't recall either you or Scharf
>citing data that proves me wrong; in fact, Scharf almost never cites
>any real data at all, and I'm certainly not the only person pointing
>that out.
>
>So don't mis-characterize my position or my arguments, please.
>
>- Frank Krygowski
It doens not need to be inordinantly risky to make wearing a helmet a
good idea. And many who say bike helmets are useless/un-necessary say
the same about motorcycle helmets - where the evidence is much
stronger for them being "a good idea"
Tim McNamara
JC Dill <jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Phil W Lee wrote:
> > The statistics are readily available, and not even contentious,
> > although helmet promoters tend to pretend they don't exist. You
> > stand a higher chance per hour of suffering a head injury as a
> > pedestrian, equestrian or motorist than as a cyclist. Taking a
> > shower is particularly dangerous!
>
> If these statistics are readily available then you will have no
> difficulty in locating and citing them.
You are apparently late to the party. This has been done umpteen times,
most recently within the past week. Do your homework.
Jay Beattie
> In article <hskroe$rt...@speranza.aioe.org>,
Note the cross post. What is old for RBR may be new for others. -- Jay
Beattie.
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
>carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> How far does a rider's head fall before it hits the ground from atop a
>> typical horse?
>>
>> How far is the helmet drop in testing?
>
>http://www.equisearch.com/horses_riding_training/tack_apparel/english/safety100703/
>
>Quote:
>To earn certification, all protective helmets (including bike, hockey
>and equestrian models) are dropped onto a flat anvil from a height of
>about six feet, and from several angles and directions. A second anvil
>test is designed with the particular risks of the sport in mind.
>(end quote)
>
>Horseback and bicycle falls are similar in many ways, different in some
>ways. Horseback falls are usually from a greater height, but you are
>more likely to land on a soft surface (e.g. sand arena). Horse falls
>occur quite often at slow speeds (many falls occur when the horse spooks
>when walking or standing). Bike falls occur more often at faster
>speeds. When riding a bike you are closer to the ground, but the ground
>is usually much harder (pavement, asphalt, concrete, etc.).
>
>The second anvil test addresses the "typical fall" concerns of each sport.
>
>> To put it in bicycle terms, would you refuse to ride a 52-inch
>> highwheeler with a modern bicycle helmet?
>
>I would refuse to ride the bike, period. It has no appeal to me.
>
>About 10 years ago I had a fall from an 18.2 hand horse (this is a VERY
>tall horse) - a very quiet horse until the incident. (She was spooked
>by something entirely unexpected, and then bucked. So I went UP before
>I came down.) I landed on my shoulder/back in soft sand but still had
>quite an impact with my head. I'm VERY glad I was wearing a helmet even
>though I was riding a "quiet" horse at the walk in a soft sand arena.
>
>I wear a helmet every ride, every time.
>
>I'm saying that it's perfectly possible to advocate helmet use without
>saying the sport is "incredibly dangerous". It's entirely possible that
>wearing a helmet is a good idea even when a sport is quite safe, simply
>because of how devastating a brain injury can be, and how easy it is to
>help prevent it.
>
>jc
Dear JC,
Whoosh!
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
>Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> For another clue: Go to
>> http://www.headway.ie/download/pdf/phillips_report.pdf
>> and scroll down to page 43 or 44, the comparative data on motorist,
>> motorcyclists, pedestrians and bicyclists.
>
>7.4.3 Road users and protective devices
>Protective devices exist to protect people from injury. However, this
>study demonstrates that more
>than 50% of patients in motor vehicle collisions were not wearing a seat
>belt and they were more
>severely injured than those wearing seat belts (p=0.03). Half the pedal
>cyclists and a third of the
>motor cyclists were not wearing helmets. Helmets are proven to save
>lives. The National Highway
>Traffic Safety Administration in the USA52 has shown that helmets reduce
>the severity of injury and
>the likelihood of death by 35-50%. When helmet laws are enacted, usage
>increases and cycling related
>injuries decrease. There was an 81% increase in fatalities amongst
>motorcyclists in Florida when the
>mandatory motor cycle helmet law was repealed.
Dear JC,
Are you aware of any differences in design and whole population
effects between motorcycle and bicycle helmets?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
>On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:52:34 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
><frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On May 14, 12:19�pm, JC Dill <jcdill.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> > Face it: Helmet promotion is all about fear mongering, portraying ALL
>>> > cycling as incredibly dangerous, and pretending cycling is a very
>>> > significant source of serious head injuries.
>>>
>>> This is BS.
>>>
>>> Helmet promotion is about protecting the brain. �An "easy" fall from a
>>> bicycle onto pavement can cause serious brain damage if you aren't
>>> wearing a helmet. �This is not open for dispute - it's a scientific fact.
>>
>>Are you pretending that's true only for riding bicycles and horses?
>>
>>Do you have any idea of the typical sources of serious brain injury?
>>Do you have any idea of the relative risk per hour?
>>
>>As a clue: Bicyclists are definitely fewer than 1% of the head injury
>>fatalities in the U.S. You won't find that on any pro-helmet website,
>>but you can look up the total number of brain injury fatalities,
>>compare with the _total_ number of bicyclist fatalities, and make use
>>of the exaggerated claims of head injury involvement in the latter.
>>I'll help you, if necessary.
>>
>>For another clue: Go to
>>http://www.headway.ie/download/pdf/phillips_report.pdf
>>and scroll down to page 43 or 44, the comparative data on motorist,
>>motorcyclists, pedestrians and bicyclists.
>>
>>- Frank Krygowski
>
>Frank, it's not the fatalities - it's the brain INJURIES. The ones
>that cause lifelong deficits, and longterm suffering. The ones where
>sometimes they just WISH they were dead, and the ones that are not
>THAT serious - but still definitely severe.
Dear Clare,
Can you tell us of any whole population studies that showed any
reduction in brain injuries to bicyclists after mandatory helmet laws
led to massive increases in bicycle helmet use?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
>carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> Do you wear a helmet when you climb a ladder?
>
>I've never had a ladder spook and fall because of something that
>happened elsewhere.
>
>I've never had a ladder fall because a car pulled out in front of me.
>
>People fall from ladders because of mistakes they make in following
>basic safety precautions. People often fall from horses and from bikes
>from things that occur outside their own control (cars, dogs, etc.).
>
>BTW, I've never worn a helmet when skiing. But I learned to ski in a
>different era. Today the slopes are MUCH more crowded. There are many
>people who don't take appropriate care to ski safely. When I learned to
>ski the odds of a fall being caused by another skier (something outside
>of my control) were very low. Today, this risk is much greater. If I
>were to go skiing now, I would wear a helmet.
>
>jc
Dear JC,
I didn't ask if you've ever fallen off a ladder. Or whether your
theoretical falls would be your fault or someone else's fault.
I asked if you wear a helmet when you climb a ladder.
Do you?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
>On Fri, 14 May 2010 13:22:07 -0600, carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 May 2010 12:17:41 -0700, JC Dill <jcdill...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Don Freeman wrote:
>>>> JC Dill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> When I see you on a bike (or horse) without a helmet I know how
>>>>> little you value your own brain. It shapes my opinion of you as a
>>>>> person. I am less likely to take anything you say seriously as you
>>>>> are clearly demonstrating poor judgment (in my opinion) about your
>>>>> own well being.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But ff course making encompassing judgments, based on such a small part
>>>> of someone's behavior, gives you a whole shit load of credibility.
>>>
>>>We do things like that all the time. When I see someone be rude to a
>>>waiter, I make a judgment about that person. When I see someone be rude
>>>or bigoted towards a person of another race, I make a judgment about
>>>that person. I don't need to know the person for months to come to
>>>conclusions about their behavior when certain small acts can be quite
>>>telling.
>>>
>>>Is this 100%? No, nothing is 100%. But if you want to be thought of as
>>>someone who values their brain, wearing a helmet is a good start.
>>>
>>>In horseback riding we have some divas who don't like to wear a helmet
>>>because they get "helmet hair". Well, if they value their hair more
>>>than their brains it says volumes about their intellect, doesn't it?
>>>
>>>jc
>>
>>Dear JC,
>>
>>Do you wear a helmet when you climb a ladder?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Carl Fogel
>>
>On a construction site? You bet.
Dear Clare,
Possibly I assumed too much familiarity with helmets.
Are you confusing construction hard hats, designed to protect against
small metal objects falling onto the helmet, with bicycle or
motorcycle helmets?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel