Re: Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
Dan O
> On Nov 21, 9:14 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> > Most bike crashes in any locale do not involve motor vehicles. Most
> > bike crashes are simple falls.
>
> I thought you said bike crashes were very complex, chaotic events
> (something I'd agree with based on much experience).
>
(Clicked on this bookmark, re-read and realized... )
So *most* bike crashes are simple falls (how fast head impact?), yet
helmets rated for 14 mph impacts do no good?
<snip>
> > cyclists will rush to say "No, that's not right; cycling really is
> > dangerous!"
>
> (indexing... )
>
<snip>
Dan O
Just realized how I got this bookmark:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/74b2ffd8b9606687?&q=paronychia
Never did see a doctor for it, but did call the nurse and ask her what
to do (I don't think they were keeping track of how it happened,
though I suppose they might categorize in the computer as I mentioned
that I fell off a bike). I'd have never called her except for the
infection. Looks all better now.
DirtRoadie
DirtRoadie
One thing we can count on from Krygowski is his inconsistency.
He'll say whatever he needs to in order support his argument TODAY,
regardless of what he said yesterday. We still do not know who these
anonymous hordes are who he claims are yelling "DANGER! DANGER!"
DR
Frank Krygowski
> On Nov 22, 9:07 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 9:14 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > > Most bike crashes in any locale do not involve motor vehicles. Most
> > > bike crashes are simple falls.
>
> > I thought you said bike crashes were very complex, chaotic events
> > (something I'd agree with based on much experience).
>
> (Clicked on this bookmark, re-read and realized... )
>
> So *most* bike crashes are simple falls (how fast head impact?)
Most bike crashes have zero head impact.
The dreaded connection between riding bikes and significant head
injuries is a gross exaggeration. Look at the data.
Bike accidents are no more productive of head injuries than pedestrian
accidents, and pedestrians have far more of them (over triple the
number) per mile.
> yet helmets rated for 14 mph impacts do no good?
They haven't, at least regarding serious head injuries. Look at the
data.
Read this article, if you haven't done so yet. Read it again if
necessary.
http://bicycleuniverse.info/eqp/helmets-nyt.html
- Frank Krygowski
Barry
> necessary.
> http://bicycleuniverse.info/eqp/helmets-nyt.html
I'm surprised you would cite this article, which states:
"... safety experts stress that while helmets do not prevent accidents, they
are extremely effective at reducing the severity of head injuries when they do
occur. Almost no one suggests that riders should stop wearing helmets, which
researchers have found can reduce the severity of brain injuries by as much as
88 percent."
Dan O
A lot of talk trying to explain some data. Where's the data?
Duane Hébert
You get used to it. If you don't get the same information as
he did from the article, you must have problems understanding it.
Frank Krygowski
If you do much reading on this subject, you'll find it's not at all
unusual for article authors to make statements (and even conclusions)
which are very much at odds with the data. I can give other examples.
Are you aware of the source of the "as much as 88 percent" claim?
That (and its more common "85%" variant) are the single most quoted
numbers regarding bike helmet effectiveness. Yet the tiny, early
study that produced those claims was discredited within a year or two
of its publishing. We can discuss, if you like. Start with
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.html
In any case, it's silly to pretend that bike helmets can reduce injury
88 percent when national data shows they reduced it by zero percent -
or less! No serious scientist would claim a poorly controlled study
of a few hundred kids trumps the data from an entire nation.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
Dan O
Looks pretty constant to me. (i thought that other article said head
injuries were rising?) (And the "Notes" below are not supported by
the table.) Where's the data that shows increased helmet use? (Don't
smarm me about STFW, either.) (Really, you'd think someone who places
so much importance on seeing the data would get it together in the
first place.)
Besides, when I say, "helmets rated for 14 mph impacts do no good?", I
don't mean good in terms of charts and graphs, I mean good in terms of
better outcomes following head impacts (which, based upon your data so
far, would appear to be inevitable). That's what they're for, right?
That data is supposed to be about people treated in hospital ER's,
right? If I smack my head hard with a helmet on, it doesn't feel much
better than when I do it without. I am just as likely to go the ER
(not likely in either case - unless I go "implied consent", or if I
need stitches or something). Whatever happens, happens. I still
think it's a no-brainer that the helmet can be worthwhile protection
against getting hurt.
(My dog in heaven - look at what I am stirring up here! That's it -
no more computer for a while.)
Dan O
> On Dec 24, 12:30 pm, "Barry" <Ba...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > Read this article, if you haven't done so yet. Read it again if
> > > necessary.
> > >http://bicycleuniverse.info/eqp/helmets-nyt.html
>
> > I'm surprised you would cite this article, which states:
>
> > "... safety experts stress that while helmets do not prevent accidents, they
> > are extremely effective at reducing the severity of head injuries when they do
> > occur. Almost no one suggests that riders should stop wearing helmets, which
> > researchers have found can reduce the severity of brain injuries by as much as
> > 88 percent."
>
> If you do much reading on this subject, you'll find it's not at all
> unusual for article authors to make statements (and even conclusions)
> which are very much at odds with the data. I can give other examples.
>
> Are you aware of the source of the "as much as 88 percent" claim?
> That (and its more common "85%" variant) are the single most quoted
> numbers regarding bike helmet effectiveness. Yet the tiny, early
> study that produced those claims was discredited within a year or two
>
> In any case, it's silly to pretend that bike helmets can reduce injury
> 88 percent when national data shows they reduced it by zero percent -
> or less! No serious scientist would claim a poorly controlled study
> of a few hundred kids trumps the data from an entire nation.
>
(Okay - just one more and then some egg nog... )
The data you use to support "zero percent - or less!" is about injury
*counts*, right? And the statement about 88 percent was about the
*severity* of head injuries. Have I got that straight so far?
Frank Krygowski
> On Dec 24, 9:50 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 24, 12:37 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 24, 9:23 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > yet helmets rated for 14 mph impacts do no good?
>
> > > > They haven't, at least regarding serious head injuries. Look at the
> > > > data.
>
> > > > Read this article, if you haven't done so yet. Read it again if
> > > > necessary.http://bicycleuniverse.info/eqp/helmets-nyt.html
>
> > > A lot of talk trying to explain some data. Where's the data?
>
> >http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1041.html
>
> Looks pretty constant to me. (i thought that other article said head
> injuries were rising?) (And the "Notes" below are not supported by
> the table.) Where's the data that shows increased helmet use? (Don't
> smarm me about STFW, either.) (Really, you'd think someone who places
> so much importance on seeing the data would get it together in the
> first place.)
And I'd think that someone who wanted the data would look for it.
> Besides, when I say, "helmets rated for 14 mph impacts do no good?", I
> don't mean good in terms of charts and graphs, I mean good in terms of
> better outcomes following head impacts (which, based upon your data so
> far, would appear to be inevitable). That's what they're for, right?
>
> That data is supposed to be about people treated in hospital ER's,
> right? If I smack my head hard with a helmet on, it doesn't feel much
> better than when I do it without. I am just as likely to go the ER
> (not likely in either case - unless I go "implied consent", or if I
> need stitches or something). Whatever happens, happens. I still
> think it's a no-brainer that the helmet can be worthwhile protection
> against getting hurt.
>
> (My dog in heaven - look at what I am stirring up here! That's it -
> no more computer for a while.)
<sigh> Not much into math and science, are you, Dan?
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
Dude! "Nova" is my favorite show. (Well, that and "Austin City
Limits" :-) I whipped out the pumper/operator quizzes in real time
with ballpoint on scratch paper while everyone else used calculators.
Duane Hebert
"Dan O" <danov...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b39944cf-031b-468d...@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Don't let it bother you. I graduated cum laudi with my comp sci degree
and he tells me the same thing. You don't need to justify yourself to
trolls.
jbr...@sonic.net
>> Read this article, if you haven't done so yet. Read it again if
>> necessary:
http://bicycleuniverse.info/eqp/helmets-nyt.html
> I'm surprised you would cite this NY Times article, which states:
# "... safety experts stress that while helmets do not prevent
# accidents, they are extremely effective at reducing the severity of
# head injuries when they do occur. Almost no one suggests that
# riders should stop wearing helmets, which researchers have found can
# reduce the severity of brain injuries by as much as 88 percent."
Sounds like religion to me. This must be taken on faith, there being
no evidence cited, however, the article makes no effort to convince
readers that wearing a helmet makes bicycling safer.
--
Jobst Brandt
jbr...@sonic.net
>>> Read this article, if you haven't done so yet. Read it again if
>>> necessary:
http://bicycleuniverse.info/eqp/helmets-nyt.html
>> I'm surprised you would cite this NY Times article, which states:
# "... safety experts stress that while helmets do not prevent
# accidents, they are extremely effective at reducing the severity of
# head injuries when they do occur. Almost no one suggests that riders
# should stop wearing helmets, which researchers have found can reduce
# the severity of brain injuries by as much as 88 percent."
> You get used to it. If you don't get the same impression from the
> article as Frank did, you must have problems understanding it.
amen!
--
Jobst Brandt
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
Mr. Hébert seems to have much more problems with "trolls" that disagree
with his preconceived notions than trolls who do not.
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Barry
I agree that the 88% claim is nonsense. So I don't consider the article a
credible source, and I'm surprised Frank suggested that anyone read it.
James
> On Dec 24, 10:21 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bike accidents are no more productive of head injuries than pedestrian
> accidents, and pedestrians have far more of them (over triple the
> number) per mile.
I'm not sure how you exist with such fearful notions. Don't take up
sleeping, at some stage you will need to get out of bed, and we all know
how frequently people die from that activity. You'd better not eat
anything either, choking is a real killer you know.
JS.