The Hypocrisy in Frank Krygowski's professions of faith
Andre Jute
> I'm rambling, sorry. The point is, I'm not trying to be rude to
> anyone but those who are rude to me. (I admit it would be better to
> totally ignore the childish Jute with his childish insults, and I
> usually do try.) When Scharf lies, I _will_ call him on it and
> correct him. Beyond that, if Duane or others take every disagreement
> as an insult, there's little I can do. I have my facts. They should
> be able to present theirs without getting offended - assuming they
> have facts, not unfounded opinions.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
LOL. Kreepy Krygowski is "rambling" (his description, not mine) at
Dan, not at me, but nevertheless can't resist taking a profoundly
silly sideswipe at me, entirely without provocation. What a
hypocritical wanker!
Is there anyone here who hasn't yet grasped that the reason I'm
anathema to the global warmies and the anti-helmet zealots, to both of
which doomed fraternities Krygowski belongs with a religious
conviction, is that I am competent with the statistics (Krygowski has
to work with my numbers because he's too ignorant to work up his own),
and always come to the table fully loaded with the scientific facts.
It just looks like an unfair contest between a religious obsessive and
a monster polemicist to these losers because that's a sort of excuse
for them looking foolish every time they tangle with me; if you look
carefully, you'll discover that I quash these idiots simply because
I'm open-minded and always better prepared on the facts than they are.
(Some of them have no facts, only faith and abuse.)
This newsgroup used to be absolutely full of global warmies. Now the
only global warmie eyebrows we see rising above the parapet belong to
the incorrigible slow learners, like Krygowski.
It figures that Krygo should be an anti-helmet zealot as well. I have
posted recently on the delicious irony of the contradiction in holding
those two positions concurrently. See, Global Warming "science" wants
to substitute for real science a scare tactic called "the
precautionary principle", i.e. we should beggar ourselves and our
descendants for something that might happen though they can offer no
proof that it will, or that the effort won't be more harmful than
beneficial. (In the 1970s the same sort of morons, in many cases the
same people, who now want us to starve trees of their food, CO2,
wanted us to heat up the oceans to combat the coming Big Freeze. They
claimed back then too to have have science on their side, and a big
consensus...) But if the "precautionary principle" is good enough for
global warming, which has less hard science than Scientology, why
isn't the precautionary principle also good enough to mandate bicycle
helmets in the presence of so much more high quality data? (Note that
I'm not arguing for this despicable cop-out of the "precautionary
principle", which can justify any evil -- say the Holotcaust --
because it specifically depends on the absence of proof and reason,
merely pointing out the hypocrisy of people like Krygowski, who are
trying to set themselves up as our spokesmen.)
Andre Jute
Never more brutal than he has to be -- Nelson Mandela
incredulous
You've learned so much behavior from a sometime provacateur I recall
as calling himself Dolan the Great.
I haven't read Krygowski's chewing on bicycle helmets' efficaciousness
as lame.
Harry Travis
Andre Jute
>
> I haven't read Krygowski's chewing on bicycle helmets' efficaciousness
> as lame.
>
> Harry Travis
From the New York study cited below:
• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet
That conjunction of facts is already a strong inducement to wear a
helmet. This, in addition, makes it tough for anyone in good faith to
advise people that helmets are unnecessary:
• Compare the very low level of helmet use in fatal crashes (3%) to
that in non-fatal crashes leading to serious injury (13%).
Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf
Krygowski hasn't dared answer the implication that at least ~10% of
the fatalities could have lived if they wore helmets.
That's not just "limp", as you have it, Harry, that's Krygowski being
cowardly and substituting personal abuse and lies for statistical
analysis and reason and truth. Furthermore, it is despicable and
slimy: Krygowski is trying to substitute his politics for science
because he fears, and says openly, that any results which tend to
indicate that helmets save lives is ammunition for the proponents of
mandatory helmet laws.
I, for one, won't lie for Krygowski's political self-aggrandizement.
Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar
kolldata
questions from the assembled panel of morons, baboons, LBS owners,
bike mechanics ( a presumption) computer users lacking imagination,
creativity or motivation are directly proportional to Jute's
involvement.
Using proper names for personal attacks in subject lines is offensive
and clearly threatening for the first time reader seeking advice.
Perjorative subject line material isnot in our best interests. The
practice is directly comparable to ongoing diatribes on colostomy.
incredulous
>
> From the New York study cited below:
>
> • Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
> • Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing ahelmet
>
> That conjunction of facts is already a strong inducement to wear ahelmet.
I assume both stats above are about cyclists. Substitute "pedestrians"
or "passenger vehicle occupants" or "drivers of 18 wheel trucks", and
the sentences are still reasonable. Jute, by his profession of
relentless rigor, would have those folks wear helmets to be protected.
Ridiculous, but civil debaters would not ridicule him for the evident
erroneous inference.
When he has done engineering analysis within his domain of expertise,
I had assumed Andre could be trusted in his exercise of logic. Now, I
don't know that I would trust a valve amplifier of his design.
If the NY study doesn't estimate exposure to risk better than Jute
draws inferences, then the report is no more worth reading than the
nasty threads Jute has recently started.
Trying not to be prejudicial, I'd still suggest that mandatory correct
helmet use by bicycle messengers would go far in reducing fatal and
serious bicycle injuries in NYC.
Harry Travis
Pine Barrens of NJ
USA
Tim McNamara
<334538e3-6e7f-437b...@v41g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
incredulous <travis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Please don't feed the Troll Jute by responding to his endlessly inane
threads. He takes great pleasure in rendering newsgroups basically
useless.
--
That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo.
thirty-six
I will not be further encouraging the jute.
MikeWhy
>> From the New York study cited below:
>>
>> • Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
>> • Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing ahelmet
>>
>> That conjunction of facts is already a strong inducement to wear
>> ahelmet.
>
> I assume both stats above are about cyclists. Substitute "pedestrians"
> or "passenger vehicle occupants" or "drivers of 18 wheel trucks", and
> the sentences are still reasonable. Jute, by his profession of
> relentless rigor, would have those folks wear helmets to be protected.
> Ridiculous, but civil debaters would not ridicule him for the evident
> erroneous inference.
The two statements are unambiguous, even if orthogonal and not supportive of
"conjunction of facts". However, both statements relate directly to helmet
use and bicycling fatalities.
Helmet wearers are extremely under-represented in fatalities. You would have
to explain why this is not relevant when discussing helmet effectiveness in
reducing bicycle deaths.
The other statement only says 26% of all bicycling fatalities died of causes
other than head injuries. Helmet use would not be irrelevant in this group.
The distribution within the other group is unknown.
In any case, neither statement has anything at all to say about pedestrians,
passenger vehicle occupants, or drivers of 18 wheel trucks. So far, you're
the one looking like a total idiot. If you're to climb out on a limb to make
debating points, make sure first that it will support your weight.
Andre Jute
> When he has done engineering analysis within his domain of expertise,
> I had assumed Andre could be trusted in his exercise of logic. Now, I
> don't know that I would trust a valve amplifier of his design.
If you need to judge the skills of a valve amplifier designer by
whether you like his bike politics, sorry Harry, you're not quite
ready for high tension tubes. Valve voltages will kill wishful
thinkers a lot faster than bicycling will. You will be safer with the
Tripath SA2020 chip, which sounds pretty near SE tubes; complete amps
with this chip cost pocket change, and it uses only a safe 12V.
> If the NY study doesn't estimate exposure to risk better than Jute
> draws inferences, then the report is no more worth reading than the
When you've read and understood the report, we can discuss my analysis
of it. Until then you're wasting our time trying to score debating
points.
Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio
constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of
wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review
Tom Sherman °_°
>[...]
Too long, did not read.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Andre Jute
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 8/14/2010 7:25 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> >[...]
>
> Too long, did not read.
>
That's OK, Tommi, for once your short attention span stood you in good
stead: you didn't miss much, just me putting down global warming, and
the Databodger crawling up Krygowski's arse, a disgusting spectacle.
-- AJ
Andre Jute
on free speech; typically he has snipped every word of mine:
******
********
Tim McNamara
"MikeWhy" <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> incredulous wrote:
> >> From the New York study cited below:
> >>
> >> € Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
> >> € Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing ahelmet
> >>
> >> That conjunction of facts is already a strong inducement to wear
> >> ahelmet.
> >
> > I assume both stats above are about cyclists. Substitute
> > "pedestrians" or "passenger vehicle occupants" or "drivers of 18
> > wheel trucks", and the sentences are still reasonable. Jute, by his
> > profession of relentless rigor, would have those folks wear helmets
> > to be protected. Ridiculous, but civil debaters would not ridicule
> > him for the evident erroneous inference.
>
> The two statements are unambiguous, even if orthogonal and not
> supportive of "conjunction of facts". However, both statements relate
> directly to helmet use and bicycling fatalities.
>
> Helmet wearers are extremely under-represented in fatalities. You
> would have to explain why this is not relevant when discussing helmet
> effectiveness in reducing bicycle deaths.
You would have to know cause of death to find the meaning in this. You
are assuming causation- e.g., that the helmets prevented death- when at
this point all we have is correlation.
> The other statement only says 26% of all bicycling fatalities died of causes
> other than head injuries.
That is not what it said. It said that 74% of crashes involved a head
injury. It did not say whether the head injury was a cause or even
contributor to death. It also did not say what the head injuries were-
crushed skull and pulped brain, scalp laceration, or closed head injury
caused by acceleration or deceleration and not from a head impact.
There are many options here.
> Helmet use would not be irrelevant in this group. The distribution
> within the other group is unknown.
>
> In any case, neither statement has anything at all to say about
> pedestrians, passenger vehicle occupants, or drivers of 18 wheel
> trucks. So far, you're the one looking like a total idiot. If you're
> to climb out on a limb to make debating points, make sure first that
> it will support your weight.
Yes, that is good advice. You should consider taking it.
Bill Sornson
"MikeWhy" <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i4sh56$3sj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Why would he start now?
BS (jus' sayin')
Bill Sornson
"Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:timmcn-7CE5EA....@news-1.mpls.iphouse.net...
> Please don't feed the Troll Jute by responding to his endlessly inane
> threads. He takes great pleasure in rendering newsgroups basically
> useless.
"Troll" in Timspeak: anyone who expresses opinions counter to mine.
Bill "GW being the biggie, of course" S.
Bill Sornson
"Tom Sherman °_°" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
news:i4sjob$dlo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 8/14/2010 7:25 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
>>[...]
> Too long, did not read.
And this was vital to share with the group /because/...???
Dan O
> This is what Gene Daniels can find no better answer to than an assault
> on free speech; typically he has snipped every word of mine:
>
<TLDR>
... but, in any case, it's no repression of free speech choosing *not*
to reproduce and propagate someone else's blather in your own post.
AMuzi
>>> [...]
> "Tom Sherman °_°" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote
>> Too long, did not read.
Bill Sornson wrote:
> And this was vital to share with the group /because/...???
So we know Tom Sherman is alive and well
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
MikeWhy
> In article <i4sh56$3sj$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "MikeWhy" <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> incredulous wrote:
>>>> From the New York study cited below:
>>>>
>>>> € Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
>>>> € Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing ahelmet
>>>>
>>>> That conjunction of facts is already a strong inducement to wear
>>>> ahelmet.
>>>
>>> I assume both stats above are about cyclists. Substitute
>>> "pedestrians" or "passenger vehicle occupants" or "drivers of 18
>>> wheel trucks", and the sentences are still reasonable. Jute, by his
>>> profession of relentless rigor, would have those folks wear helmets
>>> to be protected. Ridiculous, but civil debaters would not ridicule
>>> him for the evident erroneous inference.
>>
>> The two statements are unambiguous, even if orthogonal and not
>> supportive of "conjunction of facts". However, both statements relate
>> directly to helmet use and bicycling fatalities.
>>
>> Helmet wearers are extremely under-represented in fatalities. You
>> would have to explain why this is not relevant when discussing helmet
>> effectiveness in reducing bicycle deaths.
>
> You would have to know cause of death to find the meaning in this.
> You are assuming causation- e.g., that the helmets prevented death-
> when at this point all we have is correlation.
Not at all, Timmy. That only says I assume the population of N.Y. helmet
wearers is much larger than 3% of the total bicycling population. Anything
else, including assumptions of causation, is in your head.
>
>> The other statement only says 26% of all bicycling fatalities died
>> of causes other than head injuries.
>
> That is not what it said. It said that 74% of crashes involved a head
> injury. It did not say whether the head injury was a cause or even
> contributor to death. It also did not say what the head injuries
> were- crushed skull and pulped brain, scalp laceration, or closed
> head injury caused by acceleration or deceleration and not from a
> head impact. There are many options here.
I said nothing about the 74%, Timmy. I said 26% definitely did not die of
head injuries. No options needed. Reading comprehension for you does appear
to be optional, however. We would have much less to disagree on if you were
similarly precise in your expression and rigorous in your thinking.
>
>> Helmet use would not be irrelevant in this group. The distribution
>> within the other group is unknown.
>>
>> In any case, neither statement has anything at all to say about
>> pedestrians, passenger vehicle occupants, or drivers of 18 wheel
>> trucks. So far, you're the one looking like a total idiot. If you're
>> to climb out on a limb to make debating points, make sure first that
>> it will support your weight.
>
> Yes, that is good advice. You should consider taking it.
Bring it on, Tim. I am truly glad we're past your known science and settled
history dance.
Frank Krygowski
> Helmet wearers are extremely under-represented in fatalities. You would have
> to explain why this is not relevant when discussing helmet effectiveness in
> reducing bicycle deaths.
So, are you now claiming that a certified-for-mere-14mph helmet is
actually very effective in preventing cycling fatalities? That's
contrary to what we've heard from your team before, when you folks
were saying "It's not about the fatalities."
Are you simultaneously claiming that the only significant difference
between a helmet wearing cyclist and one who chooses not to wear a
helmet is that hat? In other words, do you disagree with Crocker that
other coincident factors were the actual causative mechanisms?
More specifically, whom do you observe more frequently riding facing
traffic - helmet wearers or those without helmets? Who do you suppose
are more often biking drunk? Who more often rides at night without
lights? Who more often ignores stop signs?
And do you think that slapping a helmet on a wrong-way, no-lights,
stop-sign-running drunk cyclist will change him into a careful law-
abider?
If so, you have no comprehension of the term "confounding factor."
Which is not surprising, since you've absolutely refused to read
anything of substance on this issue you're discussing.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
> On Aug 22, 8:59 pm, "MikeWhy" <boat042-nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Helmet wearers are extremely under-represented in fatalities. You would have
> > to explain why this is not relevant when discussing helmet effectiveness in
> > reducing bicycle deaths.
>
> So, are you now claiming that a certified-for-mere-14mph helmet is
> actually very effective in preventing cycling fatalities? That's
> contrary to what we've heard from your team before, when you folks
> were saying "It's not about the fatalities."
>
Admittedly, I have trouble keeping track, but which "team" said:
"The Dutch and Danes fall
from their bicycles, unhelmeted. There should be monstrous levels of
death and debilitating head injuries."
Yeah, right.
I'm with you, though, that common bicycle helmets suck.
> Are you simultaneously claiming that the only significant difference
> between a helmet wearing cyclist and one who chooses not to wear a
> helmet is that hat? In other words, do you disagree with Crocker that
> other coincident factors were the actual causative mechanisms?
>
> More specifically, whom do you observe more frequently riding facing
> traffic - helmet wearers or those without helmets? Who do you suppose
> are more often biking drunk? Who more often rides at night without
> lights? Who more often ignores stop signs?
>
> And do you think that slapping a helmet on a wrong-way, no-lights,
> stop-sign-running drunk cyclist will change him into a careful law-
> abider?
>
No, not at all (no way, no how, in fact) - but he may have already
been a much safer bicyclist than the holier-than-thou-stop-sign-school-
marm.
MikeWhy
> On Aug 22, 9:36 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 22, 8:59 pm, "MikeWhy" <boat042-nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Helmet wearers are extremely under-represented in fatalities. You
>>> would have to explain why this is not relevant when discussing
>>> helmet effectiveness in reducing bicycle deaths.
>>
>> So, are you now claiming that a certified-for-mere-14mph helmet is
>> actually very effective in preventing cycling fatalities? That's
>> contrary to what we've heard from your team before, when you folks
>> were saying "It's not about the fatalities."
>>
>
> Admittedly, I have trouble keeping track, but which "team" said:
>
> "The Dutch and Danes fall
> from their bicycles, unhelmeted. There should be monstrous levels of
> death and debilitating head injuries."
>
> Yeah, right.
>
> I'm with you, though, that common bicycle helmets suck.
The fatality statistic alone makes a darn good argument by inference that
helmets are indeed effective in reducing greatly the likelihood of death by
bicycling. A successful argument to the contrary would have to invalidate
statistics as a science; invalidate the report that found very high negative
correlation between helmet wear and fatalities; or explain the as yet
unvoiced confounding factors that invalidate this conclusion.
In any case, the test standard for bicycle helmets is relevant only to the
extent that the word "helmet" is understood to mean a bicycle helmet
certified by its manufacturer as meeting or exceeding the applicable
standards.
>> Are you simultaneously claiming that the only significant difference
>> between a helmet wearing cyclist and one who chooses not to wear a
>> helmet is that hat? In other words, do you disagree with Crocker
>> that other coincident factors were the actual causative mechanisms?
>>
>> More specifically, whom do you observe more frequently riding facing
>> traffic - helmet wearers or those without helmets? Who do you
>> suppose are more often biking drunk? Who more often rides at night
>> without lights? Who more often ignores stop signs?
>>
>> And do you think that slapping a helmet on a wrong-way, no-lights,
>> stop-sign-running drunk cyclist will change him into a careful law-
>> abider?
>>
>
> No, not at all (no way, no how, in fact) - but he may have already
> been a much safer bicyclist than the
> holier-than-thou-stop-sign-school- marm.
I will state for the record unreservedly that my opinions and observations
did not in any way influence the reported finding that 97% of the study
fatalities were not wearing helmets. That needed saying only because Frank
needs help keeping his thoughts on track. In other words, it goes without
saying.
>
>> If so, you have no comprehension of the term "confounding factor."
>> Which is not surprising, since you've absolutely refused to read
>> anything of substance on this issue you're discussing.
See above. Frank Krygowski's inability to think critically and stay on topic
is the single most confounding factor in this discussion.
So far, the conclusion stands as stated: Helmet wearers are very
significantly under-represented in the bicycling fatalities reported by the
NY study. Ergo, wearing a helmet while bicycling is effective at reducing
the likelihood of death by bicycling.
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> The fatality statistic alone makes a darn good argument by inference that
> helmets are indeed effective in reducing greatly the likelihood of death by
> bicycling. A successful argument to the contrary would have to invalidate
> statistics as a science;
That's not even remotely true. Statistics as a science includes
evaluating the effects of confounding variables in studies. The
report you are touting makes no effort to even list confounding
variables, let alone account for them using statistical methods.
Briefly, your knowledge of statistics is obviously lacking. Although
they won't educate you on the techniques, some of the papers I've
cited will at least give you an idea of what competent statisticians
do to account for extraneous variables.
> So far, the conclusion stands as stated: Helmet wearers are very
> significantly under-represented in the bicycling fatalities reported by the
> NY study. Ergo, wearing a helmet while bicycling is effective at reducing
> the likelihood of death by bicycling.
Let's remember: Crocker of Austin Texas thought that his study would
show similar benefits for adult cyclists. He actually ran the study
expecting it would give him ammunition with which to push for an all-
ages mandatory helmet law. But he found instead no detectable benefit
for helmets.
And why? Because he included data on alcohol use. Including that
confounding variable showed that it was the alcohol in the blood
stream, not the lack of a helmet, that correlated with head injury.
The helmets were not protecting to any statistically significant
degree.
This illustrates the problem with simplistic correlations like the one
you - and that propaganda's authors - are making.
- Frank Krygowski
Peter Cole
> Let's remember: Crocker of Austin Texas thought that his study would
> show similar benefits for adult cyclists. He actually ran the study
> expecting it would give him ammunition with which to push for an all-
> ages mandatory helmet law. But he found instead no detectable benefit
> for helmets.
>
> And why? Because he included data on alcohol use. Including that
> confounding variable showed that it was the alcohol in the blood
> stream, not the lack of a helmet, that correlated with head injury.
> The helmets were not protecting to any statistically significant
> degree.
>
> This illustrates the problem with simplistic correlations like the one
> you - and that propaganda's authors - are making.
Has there been an update since 2008?
http://www.goodhealth.com/articles/2008/06/11/research_shows_biking_alcohol_use_risky
"We found that bicycle riders who had been drinking or using drugs - far
away more alcohol than drugs - were four times more likely to have a
head injury. While riding the bike after consuming alcohol, only one out
of 40 patients was wearing a helmet, so it appears that one of the first
things that happens is that riders don't bother with helmets."
The study has been extended for another year to confirm another finding:
That cyclists without helmets are twice as likely to have a significant
head injury.
"We looked at experience of the rider, street conditions, weather
conditions, type of street, location in city and use of drugs or
alcohol. In all truthfulness, I suspect data will show that wearing a
helmet improves safety, but we won't know for sure until the study
reaches statistical significance," adds Dr. Crocker.
This article (are there newer ones?) doesn't seem to fully support your
claims.
Andre Jute
Despite a passionate plea by Gene Daniels that his despicable
behaviour acts as a barrier to newbies entering RBT, the hypocrite Tim
McNamare nonetheless changed the thread title to "The Time Wasting of
Andre Jute".
Andre Jute
"Using proper names for personal attacks in subject lines is
offensive and clearly threatening for the first time reader seeking
advice. Perjorative subject line material is not in our best
interests. The practice is directly comparable to ongoing diatribes on
colostomy." -- Gene Daniels aka "kolldata"
Andre Jute
Despite a passionate plea by Gene Daniels that his despicable
behaviour acts as a barrier to newbies entering RBT, the hypocrite Tom
Sherman nonetheless changed the thread title to "The Hypocrisy in
André Jute's professions of faith". This is standard scummy behaviour
from Liddell Tommi.
Andre Jute
Despite a passionate plea by Gene Daniels that his despicable
behaviour acts as a barrier to newbies entering RBT, the hypocritical
scumball Tim McNamare returns for a second bit at the cherry, this
time changing the thread title to "The Time Wasting of Jute".
Andre Jute
Despite a passionate plea by Gene Daniels that his despicable
behaviour acts as a barrier to newbies entering RBT, the mindless
scumbag Dan Overman nonetheless changed the thread title to "Andre's
time wasting show".
Andre Jute
"Using proper names for personal attacks in subject lines is
offensive and clearly threatening for the first time reader seeking
advice. Perjorative subject line material is not in our best
interests. The practice is directly comparable to ongoing diatribes on
Andre Jute
> >> On 8/14/2010 7:25 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >> Too long, did not read.
> Bill Sornson wrote:
> > And this was vital to share with the group /because/...???
>
> So we know Tom Sherman is alive and well
A doubtful proposition. He's a windup dollie who repeats the same
phrase when you press his belly button. Prove he's not!
Andre Jute
I beat Eliza
Andre Jute
Despite a passionate plea by Gene Daniels that his despicable
behaviour acts as a barrier to newbies entering RBT, and multiple
complaints from himself about the practice, the hypocritical slimeball
Frank Krygowski nonetheless commented in a thread called "The Time
Wasting of Andre Jute".
Andre Jute
Despite a passionate plea by Gene Daniels that his despicable
Overman returns for a second bite at the cherry.
Andre Jute
> On Aug 23, 1:42 am, "MikeWhy" <boat042-nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Despite a passionate plea by Gene Daniels that his despicable
behaviour acts as a barrier to newbies entering RBT, there is no end
to the hypocrisy of Frank Krygowski.
Andre Jute
Andre Jute
Andre Jute
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > Let's remember: Crocker of Austin Texas thought that his study would
> > show similar benefits for adult cyclists. He actually ran the study
> > expecting it would give him ammunition with which to push for an all-
> > ages mandatory helmet law. But he found instead no detectable benefit
> > for helmets.
>
> > And why? Because he included data on alcohol use. Including that
> > confounding variable showed that it was the alcohol in the blood
> > stream, not the lack of a helmet, that correlated with head injury.
> > The helmets were not protecting to any statistically significant
> > degree.
>
> > This illustrates the problem with simplistic correlations like the one
> > you - and that propaganda's authors - are making.
>
> Has there been an update since 2008?
>
>
> "We found that bicycle riders who had been drinking or using drugs - far
> away more alcohol than drugs - were four times more likely to have a
> head injury. While riding the bike after consuming alcohol, only one out
> of 40 patients was wearing a helmet, so it appears that one of the first
> things that happens is that riders don't bother with helmets."
>
> The study has been extended for another year to confirm another finding:
> That cyclists without helmets are twice as likely to have a significant
> head injury.
>
> "We looked at experience of the rider, street conditions, weather
> conditions, type of street, location in city and use of drugs or
> alcohol. In all truthfulness, I suspect data will show that wearing a
> helmet improves safety, but we won't know for sure until the study
> reaches statistical significance," adds Dr. Crocker.
>
> This article (are there newer ones?) doesn't seem to fully support your
> claims.
Another Krygowski-cited "study" knocked into a cocked hat! I saw that
but couldn't even be bothered to report it, since Krygowski isn't
listening. He's in full-messiah mode. No contradiction of the Anti-
Helmet Zealot will be countenanced! -- AJ
MikeWhy
You truly are dense. Life is supremely simple when you don't allow yourself
to be confounded by causation or politcal agendas. The simple fact remains
that 97% of those who died while bicycling were not wearing helmets. This is
as close to 100% correlation as you'll find. Whatever the reason for the
correlation, the bicyclist is better off wearing the helmet than not wearing
the helmet.
It becomes complicated only when your agenda is something other than
bicycling safety. We've known this for centuries. In fact, the common man's
scorn for you politicking imbeciles is captured completely and concisely as
"Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." Actuarians actually don't seem to
suffer from this malady. The common man doesn't have this difficulty. It's
only the halfwits like you who see stacks of numbers as their playground, a
whiteboard on which to scribble their own fantasies. You personally, Frank
Krygowski, is without question among the worst of the offenders. You have a
history of repeatedly putting your words in others' mouths, falsely
attributing thoughts and meaning that they don't hold. It's as though you're
telling us loudly that your thoughts are unworthy of consideration. In
retrospect, I find that to be completely true. Everything you write is is
filled with internal self-inconsistencies. I agree with your first
assessment: Your thoughts are completely ignorable.
It doesn't matter why helmets are effective at preventing death by
bicycling. But here are some further thoughts on why the statistics boiled
down as they do.
1) If all that helmet use represents is a mature attitude toward safety, the
statistics bear out that their judgement is sound, including their choice to
wear helmets. Even if further study reveals that it is merely their attitude
toward safety, and not necessarily the helmet that influenced the outcomes
as they do, the simple bare fact remains that this group is very
significantly under-represented in bicycling fatality statistics.
2) Alcohol is widely known to impair judgement, interfere with motor skills,
and increase reaction time. Crocker's result can be a surprise and become
noteworthy only for those unconnected to reality. In other words, Frank,
DUH! How surprising is it that impaired judgement, vision, reaction time,
and motor skills overwhelms the benefits offered by a bicycle helmet?
3) Bicycle helmets are demonstrably effective at reducing incidence and
severity of injury. (My offer stands. Bring a hat and come ring my doorbell.
I'll happily help demonstrate helmet effectiveness.)
Taken together, the only confounding factor of note is the politicking
surrounding helmet wear. The NY study shows almost complete negative
correlation between helmet wear and fatalities. To ignore this because of
one man's confoundment is, well, confounding.
Tim McNamara
<435e985b-8b0e-48a4...@u31g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
Dan O <danov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 7:24 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > This is what Gene Daniels can find no better answer to than an assault
> > on free speech; typically he has snipped every word of mine:
> >
>
> <TLDR>
>
> ... but, in any case, it's no repression of free speech choosing *not*
> to reproduce and propagate someone else's blather in your own post.
Indeed, but Andre is manifestly a narcissistic idiot and as such cannot
figure out why someone would snip out his pearls of BS.
Tim McNamara
"MikeWhy" <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Oh, dear. Resorting to childish name calling already.
> That only says I assume the population of N.Y. helmet wearers is much
> larger than 3% of the total bicycling population. Anything else,
> including assumptions of causation, is in your head.
Your head, actually. I'm still waiting for useful data without making
assumptions. The available data does not tell us that helmets prevent
death in bicycling accidents. I am happy to stipulate that helmets may
offer some protection in some accidents and have said so many times.
But the data does not show a significant improvement in the rate of
brain injuries to cyclists with the adoption of widespread helmet use.
However, my statement stands on it own. Unless we have the missing
information we cannot interpret the meaning of the numbers offered as
basically prima facie proof of the effectiveness of helmets.
This is really a very simple discussion, if we stick to the available
facts instead of the airy-fairy drivel spouted by Scharf et al.
> >> The other statement only says 26% of all bicycling fatalities died
> >> of causes other than head injuries.
> >
> > That is not what it said. It said that 74% of crashes involved a
> > head injury. It did not say whether the head injury was a cause or
> > even contributor to death. It also did not say what the head
> > injuries were- crushed skull and pulped brain, scalp laceration, or
> > closed head injury caused by acceleration or deceleration and not
> > from a head impact. There are many options here.
>
> I said nothing about the 74%, Timmy. I said 26% definitely did not
> die of head injuries. No options needed. Reading comprehension for
> you does appear to be optional, however. We would have much less to
> disagree on if you were similarly precise in your expression and
> rigorous in your thinking.
I will accept your correction as to the intent of what you wrote. I had
interpreted this in the wider context of your comments thus far in the
thread(s), which unfairly changed the meaning of this particular
statement. I apologize.
> >> Helmet use would not be irrelevant in this group. The distribution
> >> within the other group is unknown.
> >>
> >> In any case, neither statement has anything at all to say about
> >> pedestrians, passenger vehicle occupants, or drivers of 18 wheel
> >> trucks. So far, you're the one looking like a total idiot. If
> >> you're to climb out on a limb to make debating points, make sure
> >> first that it will support your weight.
> >
> > Yes, that is good advice. You should consider taking it.
>
> Bring it on, Tim.
"Bring it on?" LOL. This isn't a fight, Mike, your apparent
interpretation of things to the contrary. This is a discussion of the
failure of the proponents of helmets to show good, solid data that backs
up their contention helmets reduce 85% (or more) of brain injuries
associated with cycling. That the data conflicts with your beliefs is
not my problem. Truth is not determined by persistence or strength of
belief but by observable, measurable fact.
> I am truly glad we're past your known science and settled history
> dance.
I don't recall discussing "known science and settled history" in any
post I have made. Nor have I been "dancing," as you put it. When I see
bullshit, I call it bullshit. There is no reason to dance.
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > Let's remember: Crocker of Austin Texas thought that his study would
> > show similar benefits for adult cyclists. He actually ran the study
> > expecting it would give him ammunition with which to push for an all-
> > ages mandatory helmet law. But he found instead no detectable benefit
> > for helmets.
>
> > And why? Because he included data on alcohol use. Including that
> > confounding variable showed that it was the alcohol in the blood
> > stream, not the lack of a helmet, that correlated with head injury.
> > The helmets were not protecting to any statistically significant
> > degree.
>
> > This illustrates the problem with simplistic correlations like the one
> > you - and that propaganda's authors - are making.
>
> Has there been an update since 2008?
>
>
> "We found that bicycle riders who had been drinking or using drugs - far
> away more alcohol than drugs - were four times more likely to have a
> head injury. While riding the bike after consuming alcohol, only one out
> of 40 patients was wearing a helmet, so it appears that one of the first
> things that happens is that riders don't bother with helmets."
>
> The study has been extended for another year to confirm another finding:
> That cyclists without helmets are twice as likely to have a significant
> head injury.
>
> "We looked at experience of the rider, street conditions, weather
> conditions, type of street, location in city and use of drugs or
> alcohol. In all truthfulness, I suspect data will show that wearing a
> helmet improves safety, but we won't know for sure until the study
> reaches statistical significance," adds Dr. Crocker.
>
> This article (are there newer ones?) doesn't seem to fully support your
> claims.
I probably should have said "no statistically valid benefit for
helmets." Crocker is apparently referring to a slight apparent
benefit that's likely random.
I've got the original paper. In it, Crocker et. al. said "Although
our data set
did not find significance in relative risk of cycling without helmet
(most likely due to small sample size), it did show a trend consistent
with previous studies that form an over-whelming body of evidence that
helmets prevent injuries and save lives, and laws should be passed to
encourage cyclists to wear helmets."
What they found was a slight trend, far below statistical significance
- in other words, as far as Crocker's team can tell, the "benefit" due
to helmet use was a random effect. P value was about 0.21.
Typically, p values need to be below 0.05 to have an effect be
considered significant.
However, recall that Crocker is an enthusiastic promoter of all-ages
helmet laws. The "overwhelming evidence" he's referring to
doubtlessly consists of other case-control studies, almost all of
which did not control for blood alcohol. So although his own study
found strong correlation between alcohol and head injury, and no
statistically sound correlation between helmet use and head injury,
he's essentially claiming that if he gets many more cyclists in the
study, the p value will drop.
Will it? Perhaps. I guess we should say "we'll see, we'll see." But
it certainly looks like the benefit, if it appears, is not going to be
large. It'll be nowhere near the common "85%" claim. And it'll never
hit the "helmets save lives" claim of the simplistic crowd.
- Frank Krygowski
James
You might argue that if no one else heard Gene's plea, neither should
you. But doesn't that put you in as bad light?
JS.
Tim McNamara
"MikeWhy" <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, he's just resistant to ineffective argumentation. Too bad Avery
Burdett doesn't play with us any more...
> Life is supremely simple when you don't allow yourself to be
> confounded by causation or politcal agendas.
"I know what I know, don't bother me with the facts" is another way to
put this. It's been Scharf's stance for years and, sadly, appears to be
contagious.
> The simple fact remains that 97% of those who died while bicycling
> were not wearing helmets. This is as close to 100% correlation as
> you'll find. Whatever the reason for the correlation, the bicyclist
> is better off wearing the helmet than not wearing the helmet.
That's your assumption. Or, if you prefer, that's your attempts at a
conclusion based on incomplete data.
Maybe this will help. If 100% of those deceased helmetless cyclists
died from brain injuries, then your claim is probably proven. If, on
the other hand, 10% died from brain injuries and 90% from other causes,
your claim is likely disproved. Your assumption, which you have
previously claimed you don't have, implicitly is that majority those
dead helmetless cyclists died from brain injuries that would have been
prevented by helmets. It may be true, it may not be true, but we don't
know that.
Of the cyclists I've known who were killed in accidents, two were not
wearing helmets. Neither died of brain injuries- one (1972) was struck
by a train and the other (1973) was struck by a car. Both died from
intra-abdominal injuries (punctured lungs, ruptured organs, etc.). The
third was wearing a helmet and was struck head-on by a truck that was on
the wrong side of the road as he was descending a fast descent on a
curvy road. Of the cyclist deaths reported in the local media in the
past five years- about a dozen- all but one or two were wearing a
helmet. One of the deaths involved two helmeted cyclists colliding
head-on. Some had brain injuries, some didn't. One of those was
murdered by an asshole with a baseball bat, so that is an outlier.
> It becomes complicated only when your agenda is something other than
> bicycling safety. We've known this for centuries. In fact, the common man's
> scorn for you politicking imbeciles is captured completely and concisely as
> "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." Actuarians actually don't seem to
> suffer from this malady. The common man doesn't have this difficulty. It's
> only the halfwits like you who see stacks of numbers as their playground, a
> whiteboard on which to scribble their own fantasies. You personally, Frank
> Krygowski, is without question among the worst of the offenders. You have a
> history of repeatedly putting your words in others' mouths, falsely
> attributing thoughts and meaning that they don't hold. It's as though you're
> telling us loudly that your thoughts are unworthy of consideration. In
> retrospect, I find that to be completely true. Everything you write is is
> filled with internal self-inconsistencies. I agree with your first
> assessment: Your thoughts are completely ignorable.
You're in danger of "pot, kettle, black."
> It doesn't matter why helmets are effective at preventing death by
> bicycling.
It matters a lot, actually. But here you are again making the
assumption of effectiveness when effectiveness is not yet proven.
> But here are some further thoughts on why the statistics boiled
> down as they do.
>
> 1) If all that helmet use represents is a mature attitude toward safety, the
> statistics bear out that their judgement is sound, including their choice to
> wear helmets. Even if further study reveals that it is merely their attitude
> toward safety, and not necessarily the helmet that influenced the outcomes
> as they do, the simple bare fact remains that this group is very
> significantly under-represented in bicycling fatality statistics.
But it is not the helmets providing that protection in that case, which
would be rather important.
> 2) Alcohol is widely known to impair judgement, interfere with motor skills,
> and increase reaction time. Crocker's result can be a surprise and become
> noteworthy only for those unconnected to reality. In other words, Frank,
> DUH! How surprising is it that impaired judgement, vision, reaction time,
> and motor skills overwhelms the benefits offered by a bicycle helmet?
If helmets worked as advertised, those issues would not "overwhelm" the
benefits offered by a bicycle helmet. Styrofoam doesn't care if you're
drunk. To my observation, drunks on bike ride a lot slower than the
be-helmeted bike commuters and enthusiasts. If you are claiming that
bring drunk and having one's reflexes and reactions slowed by alcohol
increases the risk of brain injuries, then you are also admitting that
factors other than the helmet provides a significant portion of the
helmet's protective benefit.
> 3) Bicycle helmets are demonstrably effective at reducing incidence and
> severity of injury. (My offer stands. Bring a hat and come ring my doorbell.
> I'll happily help demonstrate helmet effectiveness.)
That is not, unfortunately, a valid model of a bicycle accident and is
thus a useless demonstration that is little more than bravado.
> Taken together, the only confounding factor of note is the politicking
> surrounding helmet wear. The NY study shows almost complete negative
> correlation between helmet wear and fatalities. To ignore this because of
> one man's confoundment is, well, confounding.
What's confounding is your uncritical interpretation of the "study."
This is inconsistent with the "rigor" you would demand from those who
think differently than you.
Frank Krygowski
>
> Maybe this will help. If 100% of those deceased helmetless cyclists
> died from brain injuries, then your claim is probably proven. If, on
> the other hand, 10% died from brain injuries and 90% from other causes,
> your claim is likely disproved. Your assumption, which you have
> previously claimed you don't have, implicitly is that majority those
> dead helmetless cyclists died from brain injuries that would have been
> prevented by helmets. It may be true, it may not be true, but we don't
> know that.
>
> Of the cyclists I've known who were killed in accidents, two were not
> wearing helmets. Neither died of brain injuries- one (1972) was struck
> by a train and the other (1973) was struck by a car. Both died from
> intra-abdominal injuries (punctured lungs, ruptured organs, etc.). The
> third was wearing a helmet and was struck head-on by a truck that was on
> the wrong side of the road as he was descending a fast descent on a
> curvy road. Of the cyclist deaths reported in the local media in the
> past five years- about a dozen- all but one or two were wearing a
> helmet. One of the deaths involved two helmeted cyclists colliding
> head-on. Some had brain injuries, some didn't.
http://members.shaw.ca/jtubman/deadhelmet.html
Also, be sure to review the linked page
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/tp-tp3322-2005-page3-651.htm
- Frank Krygowski
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...] (My offer stands. Bring a hat and come ring my
> doorbell. I'll happily help demonstrate helmet effectiveness.)
How can a Usenet sock puppet have a doorbell?
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Andre Jute
> I'm still waiting for useful data without making
> assumptions.
Try this, from the multiyear New York study of cycling fatalities and
serious accidents.
• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
• Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal
crashes
Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf
This concatenation of facts suggests very strongly that not wearing a
helmet may be particularly dangerous.
• It looks like wearing a helmet saved roundabout 33 cyclists or so
(of the 333 seriously injured for whom helmet use is known) from
dying.
• If those who died wore helmets at the same rate of 13% as those in
the study who survived, a further 22 or so could have lived.
• If all the fatalities had been wearing a helmet (100%), somewhere
between 10% and 57% of them would have lived. This number is less firm
to allow for impacts so heavy that no helmet would have saved the
cyclist. Still, between 22 and 128 *additional* (to the 33 noted
above) New Yorkers alive rather than dead for wearing a thirty buck
helmet is a serious statistical, moral and political consideration
difficult to overlook.
Andre Jute
Anti-Helmet Zealotry is like Scientology, only with less science
Andre Jute
Crocker never said what Krygowski claims: "Crocker of Austin Texas ...
found instead no detectable benefit for helmets."
So now Krygowski, forced to admit helmets do have a benefit, has come
up with a straw man to give him an out: anything less than 85% of
cyclists saved by helmets will not be enough: "But it certainly looks
like the benefit, if it appears, is not going to be large. It'll be
nowhere near the common "85%" claim. And it'll never hit the "helmets
save lives" claim of the simplistic crowd."
There's a much bigger study out there than Crocker's but Krygowski
refuses even to look at it. Here we go again:
The authorities in New York made a compilation covering the years 1996
to 2003 of all the deaths (225) and serious injuries (3,462) in
cycling accidents in all New York City. The purpose of the study was
an overview usable for city development planning, not helmet advocacy,
so helmet usage was only noted for part of the period among the
seriously injured, amounting to 333 cases. Here are some obvious
conclusions from the data:
• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
• Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal
crashes
Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf
This concatenation of facts suggests very strongly that not wearing a
helmet may be particularly dangerous.
• It looks like wearing a helmet saved roundabout 33 cyclists or so
(of the 333 seriously injured for whom helmet use is known) from
dying.
• If those who died wore helmets at the same rate of 13% as those in
the study who survived, a further 22 or so could have lived.
• If all the fatalities had been wearing a helmet (100%), somewhere
between 10% and 57% of them would have lived. This number is less firm
to allow for impacts so heavy that no helmet would have saved the
cyclist. Still, between 22 and 128 *additional* (to the 33 noted
above) New Yorkers alive rather than dead for wearing a thirty buck
helmet is a serious statistical, moral and political consideration
difficult to overlook.
Andre Jute
Oh, Creepy Gene the Databodger aimed his diatribe at me. His scummy
little pals (Krygowski, Sherman, McNamara and some whose marrow I long
since sucked) have been putting my name in "pejorative headlines"
since the day I arrived on RAT, since before I opened my mouth. But
Gene would never notice that!
>But doesn't that put you in as bad light?
At least no one can say I'm a hypocrite.
You might be amused at the triviality of his answer if you were to ask
Liddell Tommi why he constantly tries to ride my ass.
Andre Jute
Even a dog gets its day. This dog has thousands of razor-sharp teeth.
LawBoy01
Tim McNamara
<6aeffb6f-d81c-46b9...@t5g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
James <james.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jeez, Jute, put a friggin' sock in it and stop being a douchebag. You
should be able to act like you're older than six.
Tim McNamara
<2758d296-1793-4ae5...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jeez, over and above whether or not helmets work incidents like these
are terrible tragedies. The Nicole Reinhart crash got a lot of media
attention, in particular.
One of the things that pisses me off about helmets is the implicit "he
(or she) got what was coming to him (or her)" if they die in a crash not
wearing a helmet. If they were wearing a helmet, it's just bad luck and
not the design failure of the helmet and the pathetically low standards
bicycle helmets must meet.
Scharf and his ilk would do a heck of a lot more good in the world
campaigning for better helmets rather than trying to get more people to
wear bad helmets.
MikeWhy
And it's clear that you also have no facts to counter the stupendous claim
of near 100% effectiveness. Why try to turn it into a personal failing on my
part?
>
>> The simple fact remains that 97% of those who died while bicycling
>> were not wearing helmets. This is as close to 100% correlation as
>> you'll find. Whatever the reason for the correlation, the bicyclist
>> is better off wearing the helmet than not wearing the helmet.
>
> That's your assumption. Or, if you prefer, that's your attempts at a
> conclusion based on incomplete data.
>
> Maybe this will help. If 100% of those deceased helmetless cyclists
> died from brain injuries, then your claim is probably proven. If, on
> the other hand, 10% died from brain injuries and 90% from other
> causes, your claim is likely disproved. Your assumption, which you
> have previously claimed you don't have, implicitly is that majority
> those dead helmetless cyclists died from brain injuries that would
> have been prevented by helmets. It may be true, it may not be true,
> but we don't know that.
Not at all. Almost 100% effective is a bit too startling even for me to
attribute to just the power of the foam. See below for my additional
thoughts on helmet effectiveness and causation. Here, I address only the
statistic presented. Sputter at me all you like.
> Of the cyclists I've known who were killed in accidents, two were not
> wearing helmets. Neither died of brain injuries- one (1972) was
> struck by a train and the other (1973) was struck by a car. Both
> died from intra-abdominal injuries (punctured lungs, ruptured organs,
> etc.). The third was wearing a helmet and was struck head-on by a
> truck that was on the wrong side of the road as he was descending a
> fast descent on a curvy road. Of the cyclist deaths reported in the
> local media in the past five years- about a dozen- all but one or two
> were wearing a helmet. One of the deaths involved two helmeted
> cyclists colliding head-on. Some had brain injuries, some didn't.
> One of those was murdered by an asshole with a baseball bat, so that
> is an outlier.
First, my condolensces on your personal loss, and to the friends and
families they left behind. There but for the grace go I. These stories are
much more common in motorcycle groups. We spend a few minutes often enough
commiserating on our recent losses. And we also talk at length about safety
gear. The short and long of it is leathers and helmets are effective
protection against the road. Anything vertical standing in your path will
leave a lasting mark. There really is very little you can tell me about road
hazards and cycling deaths that I don't already know.
That's about as far as I'll go in admitting unknown factors why helmet
wearers are so under-represented in the death statistic. Your assessment of
helmet effectiveness isn't very different from mine.
>> 2) Alcohol is widely known to impair judgement, interfere with motor
>> skills, and increase reaction time. Crocker's result can be a
>> surprise and become noteworthy only for those unconnected to
>> reality. In other words, Frank, DUH! How surprising is it that
>> impaired judgement, vision, reaction time, and motor skills
>> overwhelms the benefits offered by a bicycle helmet?
>
> If helmets worked as advertised, those issues would not "overwhelm"
> the benefits offered by a bicycle helmet. Styrofoam doesn't care if
> you're drunk.
And just how are helmets advertised? I'm aware only of the test standards.
Very little of it applies to a drunk pedaling his way home. The lucky ones
lose their balance and stay where they fell. The less fortunate struggle
back upright long enough to ride home in car traffic. I have very little
expectation that a helmet has much meaning in an argument with a 2 ton
vehicle.
> To my observation, drunks on bike ride a lot slower
> than the be-helmeted bike commuters and enthusiasts. If you are
> claiming that bring drunk and having one's reflexes and reactions
> slowed by alcohol increases the risk of brain injuries, then you are
> also admitting that factors other than the helmet provides a
> significant portion of the helmet's protective benefit.
Of course I am, although "admitting" here seems so argumentative. Choose a
different word. We "agree" that accidents don't come as lightning bolts out
of the blue, and the harsh roadway is the least of concerns for the drunk,
clumsy, or inept.
>
>> 3) Bicycle helmets are demonstrably effective at reducing incidence
>> and severity of injury. (My offer stands. Bring a hat and come ring
>> my doorbell. I'll happily help demonstrate helmet effectiveness.)
>
> That is not, unfortunately, a valid model of a bicycle accident and is
> thus a useless demonstration that is little more than bravado.
That's a bit presumptuous. Who said anything about a softball bat?
>> Taken together, the only confounding factor of note is the
>> politicking surrounding helmet wear. The NY study shows almost
>> complete negative correlation between helmet wear and fatalities. To
>> ignore this because of one man's confoundment is, well, confounding.
>
> What's confounding is your uncritical interpretation of the "study."
> This is inconsistent with the "rigor" you would demand from those who
> think differently than you.
I'm unaware of interpreting anything. I accept the study's findings, lacking
evidence to the contrary.
Kevan Smith
> Scharf and his ilk would do a heck of a lot more good in the world
> campaigning for better helmets rather than trying to get more people to
> wear bad helmets.
They know no one would wear the best helmet, which is a fully enclosed,
round design. It wouldn't have much ventilation, it would be thick, and
it would look like a motorcycle helmet. In fact, I'd say if you're
wearing a helmet for safety concerns, why stop short at just a cycling
helmet? Get a motorcycle helmet.
Frank Krygowski
> I accept the study's findings, lacking
> evidence to the contrary.
If you lack evidence to the contrary, it can be only because you have
steadfastly refused to look at any evidence I (or others) have been
citing in posts.
Despite yours and Mr. Scharf's apparent beliefs, closing one's eyes
will not make other's data go away. Willful ignorance is not a
respected debating technique.
Here's some more data you'll probably refuse to examine. Can you
point to the helmet benefit during this time of rapidly rising helmet
use? I don't see it.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1041.html
- Frank Krygowski
MikeWhy
You have evidence that the NY study's finding of almost 100% helmet
effectiveness is flawed? Or are you just trotting out and wasting my time
with a tired old other study that doesn't address the NY findings?
Andre Jute
> In article
> <6aeffb6f-d81c-46b9-8e5b-e217e135d...@t5g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 24, 2:43 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 23, 2:43 am, Tom Sherman °_°
>
> > > <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>
> > > Despite a passionate plea by Gene Daniels that his despicable
> > > behaviour acts as a barrier to newbies entering RBT, the hypocrite Tom
> > > Sherman nonetheless changed the thread title to "The Hypocrisy in
> > > André Jute's professions of faith". This is standard scummy behaviour
> > > from Liddell Tommi.
>
> > > Andre Jute
> > > "Using proper names for personal attacks in subject lines is
> > > offensive and clearly threatening for the first time reader seeking
> > > advice. Perjorative subject line material is not in our best
> > > interests. The practice is directly comparable to ongoing diatribes on
> > > colostomy." -- Gene Daniels aka "kolldata"
>
> > You might argue that if no one else heard Gene's plea, neither should
> > you. But doesn't that put you in as bad light?
>
> Jeez, Jute, put a friggin' sock in it and stop being a douchebag. You
> should be able to act like you're older than six.
Anyone want to be treated by a "psychologist" who thinks this is
sophisticated bandinage? No wonder Timmie McNamara has to practice in
the State system on "patients" who're incarcerated so that they can't
escape his ministrations.
Andre Jute
Boss psychologist
PS McNamara is so thick that he thinks James Steward is me...
Tim McNamara
"MikeWhy" <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The facts debunking the notion of helmets providing a measurable net
protective benefit have been given many times in these threads, Mike.
Is repeating them yet again going to make a difference to you? It's
clear that you believe what you believe and will not be swayed by the
evidence.
> >> The simple fact remains that 97% of those who died while bicycling
> >> were not wearing helmets. This is as close to 100% correlation as
> >> you'll find. Whatever the reason for the correlation, the
> >> bicyclist is better off wearing the helmet than not wearing the
> >> helmet.
> >
> > That's your assumption. Or, if you prefer, that's your attempts at
> > a conclusion based on incomplete data.
> >
> > Maybe this will help. If 100% of those deceased helmetless
> > cyclists died from brain injuries, then your claim is probably
> > proven. If, on the other hand, 10% died from brain injuries and
> > 90% from other causes, your claim is likely disproved. Your
> > assumption, which you have previously claimed you don't have,
> > implicitly is that majority those dead helmetless cyclists died
> > from brain injuries that would have been prevented by helmets. It
> > may be true, it may not be true, but we don't know that.
>
> Not at all. Almost 100% effective is a bit too startling even for me
> to attribute to just the power of the foam. See below for my
> additional thoughts on helmet effectiveness and causation. Here, I
> address only the statistic presented. Sputter at me all you like.
"Sputter?" At what? And why? You seem to be attributing some kind of
emotional state to me which I am not experiencing.
> > Of the cyclists I've known who were killed in accidents, two were
> > not wearing helmets. Neither died of brain injuries- one (1972)
> > was struck by a train and the other (1973) was struck by a car.
> > Both died from intra-abdominal injuries (punctured lungs, ruptured
> > organs, etc.). The third was wearing a helmet and was struck
> > head-on by a truck that was on the wrong side of the road as he was
> > descending a fast descent on a curvy road. Of the cyclist deaths
> > reported in the local media in the past five years- about a dozen-
> > all but one or two were wearing a helmet. One of the deaths
> > involved two helmeted cyclists colliding head-on. Some had brain
> > injuries, some didn't. One of those was murdered by an asshole with
> > a baseball bat, so that is an outlier.
>
> First, my condolensces on your personal loss, and to the friends and
> families they left behind. There but for the grace go I. These
> stories are much more common in motorcycle groups. We spend a few
> minutes often enough commiserating on our recent losses. And we also
> talk at length about safety gear. The short and long of it is
> leathers and helmets are effective protection against the road.
> Anything vertical standing in your path will leave a lasting mark.
> There really is very little you can tell me about road hazards and
> cycling deaths that I don't already know.
That is manifestly not true, Mike, when it comes to your faith in the
protective power of bicycle helmets. Motorcycle helmets, on the other
hand, seem to be more likely to have protective benefits. They have a
true hard shell rather than a decorative plastic coating and thicker
absorptive material. They also weigh a lot more and would be unsuitable
for use on a bicycle.
You are saying that they are rarely useful in and of themselves, but
that other factors associated with helmet use may provide protection?
> >> 2) Alcohol is widely known to impair judgement, interfere with
> >> motor skills, and increase reaction time. Crocker's result can be
> >> a surprise and become noteworthy only for those unconnected to
> >> reality. In other words, Frank, DUH! How surprising is it that
> >> impaired judgement, vision, reaction time, and motor skills
> >> overwhelms the benefits offered by a bicycle helmet?
> >
> > If helmets worked as advertised, those issues would not "overwhelm"
> > the benefits offered by a bicycle helmet. Styrofoam doesn't care
> > if you're drunk.
>
> And just how are helmets advertised? I'm aware only of the test
> standards.
My favorite helmet ad was an adorable little girl wearing her new tennis
shoes. The caption was "does your child have $200 feet and a $20 head?"
Multiple clear implications there, the best one being that you're a
neglectful parent if you don't buy your child the most expensive helmet-
even though the cheaper helmet will provide just as much protection (and
costs almost exactly the same amount to manufacture).
> Very little of it applies to a drunk pedaling his way
> home. The lucky ones lose their balance and stay where they fell. The
> less fortunate struggle back upright long enough to ride home in car
> traffic. I have very little expectation that a helmet has much
> meaning in an argument with a 2 ton vehicle.
I also think helmets have little benefit in a collision with a motor
vehicle. There are typically going to be far too many other major
injuries.
> > To my observation, drunks on bike ride a lot slower than the
> > be-helmeted bike commuters and enthusiasts. If you are claiming
> > that bring drunk and having one's reflexes and reactions slowed by
> > alcohol increases the risk of brain injuries, then you are also
> > admitting that factors other than the helmet provides a significant
> > portion of the helmet's protective benefit.
>
> Of course I am, although "admitting" here seems so argumentative.
> Choose a different word. We "agree" that accidents don't come as
> lightning bolts out of the blue, and the harsh roadway is the least
> of concerns for the drunk, clumsy, or inept.
Hmm, you have a point there about the word "admitting." I'm not sure
what other word to choose.
> >> 3) Bicycle helmets are demonstrably effective at reducing
> >> incidence and severity of injury. (My offer stands. Bring a hat
> >> and come ring my doorbell. I'll happily help demonstrate helmet
> >> effectiveness.)
> >
> > That is not, unfortunately, a valid model of a bicycle accident and
> > is thus a useless demonstration that is little more than bravado.
>
> That's a bit presumptuous. Who said anything about a softball bat?
Huh? I didn't track that.
> >> Taken together, the only confounding factor of note is the
> >> politicking surrounding helmet wear. The NY study shows almost
> >> complete negative correlation between helmet wear and fatalities.
> >> To ignore this because of one man's confoundment is, well,
> >> confounding.
> >
> > What's confounding is your uncritical interpretation of the
> > "study." This is inconsistent with the "rigor" you would demand
> > from those who think differently than you.
>
> I'm unaware of interpreting anything. I accept the study's findings,
> lacking evidence to the contrary.
There's been lots of evidence to the contrary; indeed that is what makes
the claims of that particular one so interesting. When a study is a
major outlier compared to other studies, that requires close examination.
Andre Jute
"MikeWhy" <boat042-nos...@yahoo.com>:
> Here's some more data you'll probably refuse to examine. Can you
> point to the helmet benefit during this time of rapidly rising helmet
> use? I don't see it.
>
> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1041.html
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Here's some data you keep refusing to view and discuss, Frankie-boy.
We all wonder why you're running scared of it. Can it be that you have
no answer?
Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf
Andre Jute
It is boring to be right all the time
James
> In article <i4viq1$on...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
>
>
> "MikeWhy" <boat042-nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > And just how are helmets advertised? I'm aware only of the test
> > standards.
>
> My favorite helmet ad was an adorable little girl wearing her new tennis
> shoes. The caption was "does your child have $200 feet and a $20 head?"
> Multiple clear implications there, the best one being that you're a
> neglectful parent if you don't buy your child the most expensive helmet-
> even though the cheaper helmet will provide just as much protection (and
> costs almost exactly the same amount to manufacture).
Or the parent foolishly spent too much on shoes.
JS.
MikeWhy
> In article <i4viq1$onq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "MikeWhy" <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> In article <i4uddi$p5a$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, "MikeWhy"
>>> <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Life is supremely simple when you don't allow yourself to be
>>>> confounded by causation or politcal agendas.
>>>
>>> "I know what I know, don't bother me with the facts" is another way
>>> to put this. It's been Scharf's stance for years and, sadly,
>>> appears to be contagious.
>>
>> And it's clear that you also have no facts to counter the stupendous
>> claim of near 100% effectiveness. Why try to turn it into a personal
>> failing on my part?
>
> The facts debunking the notion of helmets providing a measurable net
> protective benefit have been given many times in these threads, Mike.
> Is repeating them yet again going to make a difference to you? It's
> clear that you believe what you believe and will not be swayed by the
> evidence.
In other words, you have nothing. Helmets don't work, you know what you know
and that's that, and yet the NY study finds them near 100% effective. 3% of
all fatalities in that study was wearing a helmet. What do you suppose it
means, then?
Frank Krygowski
> >
> My favorite helmet ad was an adorable little girl wearing her new tennis
> shoes. The caption was "does your child have $200 feet and a $20 head?"
> Multiple clear implications there, the best one being that you're a
> neglectful parent if you don't buy your child the most expensive helmet-
> even though the cheaper helmet will provide just as much protection (and
> costs almost exactly the same amount to manufacture).
Then there was the Bell "Courage for your Head" ad in Buycycling
magazine. It consisted almost entirely of that phrase, plus a full-
page photo of three or four mountain bikers standing at the bottom of
a 25'cliff, looking up at the camera. The camera-eye view was
intended to represent the reader, who - by implication - would ride
his mountain bike down a 25' vertical cliff because his helmet would
give him courage.
Remember, helmets are certified by a test of a helmeted headform - no
body attached - dropping roughly just six feet.
I was surprised that ad didn't generate dozens of lawsuits.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >
>
> >http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1041.html
>
> You have evidence that the NY study's finding of almost 100% helmet
> effectiveness is flawed? Or are you just trotting out and wasting my time
> with a tired old other study that doesn't address the NY findings?
The data I cited clearly shows that bike helmets haven't reduced head
injuries in the entire American population during the years listed.
So what exactly are you claiming - that helmets work wonderfully in
New York, even though they clearly don't work in the rest of America?
That's specious.
The explanation for the disparity is clear. As in the Thompson &
Rivara 1989 paper, the 2009 Crocker paper and probably all other case-
control studies, helmet presence is not the one factor that affects
outcome. Lack of alcohol in the blood, obedience to traffic laws,
lights at night, etc. are more important. Due to "SAFETY!"
propaganda, those are correlated to helmet wearing.
But if the correctly-riding cyclists had been convinced that pink
beanies were a major key to safety, then pink beanies would show the
same correlation that helmets do.
By the way, it's still true that 100% of killed pedestrians and car
occupants were not wearing helmets. I assume you'll make their helmet
use your next missionary cause? It's just as logical!
- Frank Krygowski
Tim McNamara
"MikeWhy" <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <i4viq1$onq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, "MikeWhy"
> > <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>> In article <i4uddi$p5a$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, "MikeWhy"
> >>> <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Life is supremely simple when you don't allow yourself to be
> >>>> confounded by causation or politcal agendas.
> >>>
> >>> "I know what I know, don't bother me with the facts" is another
> >>> way to put this. It's been Scharf's stance for years and, sadly,
> >>> appears to be contagious.
> >>
> >> And it's clear that you also have no facts to counter the
> >> stupendous claim of near 100% effectiveness. Why try to turn it
> >> into a personal failing on my part?
> >
> > The facts debunking the notion of helmets providing a measurable
> > net protective benefit have been given many times in these threads,
> > Mike. Is repeating them yet again going to make a difference to
> > you? It's clear that you believe what you believe and will not be
> > swayed by the evidence.
>
> In other words, you have nothing.
Mike, there has been a lot of evidence previously cited. You've
obviously not read or understood it. Is citing it yet again going to
make a difference to you? I'll summarize:
There is no decrease in the incidence or prevalence of brain injuries as
a result of widespread adoption of helmets in the US or other nations.
It's as simple as that.
> Helmets don't work, you know what you know and that's that,
As I've said many times- and which you ignore- is that I'd like helmets
to work. I'd like them to prevent 85% of brain injuries.
> and yet the NY study finds them near 100% effective. 3% of all
> fatalities in that study was wearing a helmet. What do you suppose it
> means, then?
The "New York" study, as cited in the thread, offers two pieces of
measurement. No context is provided in which to understand the numbers,
resulting in the statements being meaningless. It may prove what you
claim, it may not. Without adequate information that can't be
determined whether this is correlation or causation. I want proof.
MikeWhy
"Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:timmcn-0D7764....@news-1.mpls.iphouse.net...
I get that. The two simply don't reconcile. The fact remains that helmet
wear in a free society, the present example being NY where helmet use is not
mandatory, is indicative that the wearer is very significantly less likely
to die while bicycling. They've self-selected themselves out of the fatality
pool. You can't eliminate helmet effectiveness, just as I haven't eliminated
behavioral or other factors. Helmets are demonstrably effective in reducing
incidence and severity of injury. Krygowski's anti-helmet zealotry and
propaganda is misguided and irresponsible. He needs to be leashed and
muzzled. You would do well to distance yourself from his bullshit.
MikeWhy
> Then there was the Bell "Courage for your Head" ad in Buycycling
> magazine. It consisted almost entirely of that phrase, plus a full-
> page photo of three or four mountain bikers standing at the bottom of
> a 25'cliff, looking up at the camera. The camera-eye view was
> intended to represent the reader, who - by implication - would ride
> his mountain bike down a 25' vertical cliff because his helmet would
> give him courage.
You truly are an idiot. These are bicyclists, not face jumpers. Bicyclists
ride down from hills, not jump down onto their heads. You are a fucking
idiot.
> Remember, helmets are certified by a test of a helmeted headform - no
> body attached - dropping roughly just six feet.
Yup. Six feet is roughly the free fall distance of the head to the ground.
Try that without a helmet. Do us all a favor. I dare you.
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> You truly are an idiot. These are bicyclists, not face jumpers.
> Bicyclists ride down from hills, not jump down onto their heads. You are
Brave words from Mr. Anonymous.
MikeWhy
> On 8/26/2010 10:00 AM, MikeWhy WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:
>> [...]
>> You truly are an idiot. These are bicyclists, not face jumpers.
>> Bicyclists ride down from hills, not jump down onto their heads. You
>> are a fucking idiot.[...]
>
> Brave words from Mr. Anonymous.
The email addy is real.
Tim McNamara
"MikeWhy" <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > Then there was the Bell "Courage for your Head" ad in Buycycling
> > magazine. It consisted almost entirely of that phrase, plus a
> > full- page photo of three or four mountain bikers standing at the
> > bottom of a 25'cliff, looking up at the camera. The camera-eye
> > view was intended to represent the reader, who - by implication -
> > would ride his mountain bike down a 25' vertical cliff because his
> > helmet would give him courage.
>
> You truly are an idiot. These are bicyclists, not face jumpers.
> Bicyclists ride down from hills, not jump down onto their heads. You
> are a fucking idiot.
And you obviously missed the point.
> > Remember, helmets are certified by a test of a helmeted headform -
> > no body attached - dropping roughly just six feet.
>
> Yup. Six feet is roughly the free fall distance of the head to the
> ground. Try that without a helmet. Do us all a favor. I dare you.
As your gratuitous nastiness worsens, Mike, it's increasingly difficult
to justify reading your posts.
Tim McNamara
"MikeWhy" <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Do you? It's been hard to tell.
> The two simply don't reconcile.
Correct. Red flag number one in science is when a study's results are
dramatically different from everything that came before. There is
usually one of two possibilities: the first is that the authors are
reporting some significant breakthrough that revolutionizes the field;
the other is that the authors published a flawed study. In the vast
majority of such incidents, the latter is the case.
So, we have multiple studies showing an effect size of just about nil
and one study showing an effect size approaching 100%. Clearly there is
a problem here.
> The fact remains that helmet wear in a free society, the present
> example being NY where helmet use is not mandatory, is indicative
> that the wearer is very significantly less likely to die while
> bicycling. They've self-selected themselves out of the fatality pool.
Mike, your lack of understanding about the problems in interpreting what
those two numbers mean is no longer excusable. It's been explained to
you several times but you ignore it, clinging desperately to those
numbers are "proof" that helmets work. You're exercising religion, not
science.
> You can't eliminate helmet effectiveness, just as I haven't
> eliminated behavioral or other factors.
You're also not separating them adequately.
> Helmets are demonstrably effective in reducing incidence and severity
> of injury.
No, they're not. The evidence shows little to no effectiveness, except
for the examples like "New York study" previously mentioned in this
thread. As I said previously:
> > The "New York" study, as cited in the thread, offers two pieces of
> > measurement. No context is provided in which to understand the numbers,
> > resulting in the statements being meaningless. It may prove what you
> > claim, it may not. Without adequate information that can't be
> > determined whether this is correlation or causation. I want proof.
The numbers from New York suffer from a lack of believability due to not
having the necessary information.
> Krygowski's anti-helmet zealotry and propaganda is misguided and
> irresponsible. He needs to be leashed and muzzled.
His comments about helmets are formed by the preponderance of available
facts. The zealotry and propaganda in on the side of the people making
money selling styrofoam hats. Frank's side is just pointing out the
nudity of the emperor.
> You would do well to distance yourself from his bullshit.
Over the decade of two I've been conversing with Frank, he's been right
much more often than not. Just because he disagrees with your beliefs
doesn't mean he's wrong.
> >> Helmets don't work, you know what you know and that's that,
> >
> > As I've said many times- and which you ignore- is that I'd like helmets
> > to work. I'd like them to prevent 85% of brain injuries.
> >
> >> and yet the NY study finds them near 100% effective. 3% of all
> >> fatalities in that study was wearing a helmet. What do you suppose it
> >> means, then?
> >
> > The "New York" study, as cited in the thread, offers two pieces of
> > measurement. No context is provided in which to understand the numbers,
> > resulting in the statements being meaningless. It may prove what you
> > claim, it may not. Without adequate information that can't be
> > determined whether this is correlation or causation. I want proof.
--
MikeWhy
> In article <i55vi0$t9o$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "MikeWhy" <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> Then there was the Bell "Courage for your Head" ad in Buycycling
>>> magazine. It consisted almost entirely of that phrase, plus a
>>> full- page photo of three or four mountain bikers standing at the
>>> bottom of a 25'cliff, looking up at the camera. The camera-eye
>>> view was intended to represent the reader, who - by implication -
>>> would ride his mountain bike down a 25' vertical cliff because his
>>> helmet would give him courage.
>>
>> You truly are an idiot. These are bicyclists, not face jumpers.
>> Bicyclists ride down from hills, not jump down onto their heads. You
>> are a fucking idiot.
>
> And you obviously missed the point.
Hardly. I get his point, and it's bullshit.
>
>>> Remember, helmets are certified by a test of a helmeted headform -
>>> no body attached - dropping roughly just six feet.
>>
>> Yup. Six feet is roughly the free fall distance of the head to the
>> ground. Try that without a helmet. Do us all a favor. I dare you.
>
> As your gratuitous nastiness worsens, Mike, it's increasingly
> difficult to justify reading your posts.
You do what you like, Tim. The energy equivalent of a 12 pound sledge
dropping 6 feet onto your unhelmetted headform will leave an undeniable
lasting impression. Tell me loud and clear if you agree with Krygowski that
this is unimportant and irrelevant.
Frank Krygowski
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >
> > As your gratuitous nastiness worsens, Mike, it's increasingly
> > difficult to justify reading your posts.
>
> You do what you like, Tim. The energy equivalent of a 12 pound sledge
> dropping 6 feet onto your unhelmetted headform will leave an undeniable
> lasting impression. Tell me loud and clear if you agree with Krygowski that
> this is unimportant and irrelevant.
Mike, if your helmet is _ever_ absorbing the energy of a 12 pound
sledge dropping six feet, you are experiencing a rare incident - more
rare than getting a serious head injury while walking.
I'm baffled that you can't understand that. Is it because you can't
bother to look up the number of pedestrians killed each year, and
compare it to the number of bicyclists? If you did, you'd worry more
about helmets on pedestrians.
Why not look up the main causes of fatal head injury? Do you have any
idea how low bicycling is on that list? Apparently not.
Why do you ignore the data I've linked, on changes in head injuries
since bike helmet use soared? Why haven't you taken these numbers
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1041.html
and pointed out the "near 100%" helmet effectiveness you find there?
You are arguing - rudely and nastily - as a true believer. You are so
sure that riding is terribly dangerous, and so sure that helmets are
wonderful and necessary, that you've closed your eyes, your ears and
your mind.
- Frank Krygowski
MikeWhy
Beyond that, when you say "widespread adoption", you mean post-MHL. Yes, I
get that.
>
>> The two simply don't reconcile.
>
> Correct. Red flag number one in science is when a study's results are
> dramatically different from everything that came before. There is
> usually one of two possibilities: the first is that the authors are
> reporting some significant breakthrough that revolutionizes the field;
> the other is that the authors published a flawed study. In the vast
> majority of such incidents, the latter is the case.
>
> So, we have multiple studies showing an effect size of just about nil
> and one study showing an effect size approaching 100%. Clearly there
> is a problem here.
>
>> The fact remains that helmet wear in a free society, the present
>> example being NY where helmet use is not mandatory, is indicative
>> that the wearer is very significantly less likely to die while
>> bicycling. They've self-selected themselves out of the fatality pool.
>
> Mike, your lack of understanding about the problems in interpreting
> what those two numbers mean is no longer excusable. It's been
> explained to you several times but you ignore it, clinging
> desperately to those numbers are "proof" that helmets work. You're
> exercising religion, not science.
First, I never, not once, asserted a population count as "proof" of
anything, except that liars indeed do figure and abuse numbers. Helmets work
because of simple physics, not because a bean count gives them the nod. It
seems to me that you're the one doing the clinging.
The studies you point to are before and after MHL. I pointed out earlier
that behavior and attitude differences between those who choose to wear
helmets likely differ from those who consistently choose to not wear
helmets. Further thoughts below.
>
>> You can't eliminate helmet effectiveness, just as I haven't
>> eliminated behavioral or other factors.
>
> You're also not separating them adequately.
The effect on helmet involved fatalities, already small in the population,
is swamped by the noise introduced with MHL. If you've addressed that, I've
missed it. I have a study on one hand that shows, albeit unexplained, that
helmet wear correlates almost 100% negatively with fatality, far beyond any
reasonable expectation of measurement or accounting error. The only counter
you've given is that this can't be right, simply because it disagrees with
your other studies. Do you see the pot calling kettle black?
>
>> Helmets are demonstrably effective in reducing incidence and severity
>> of injury.
>
> No, they're not. The evidence shows little to no effectiveness,
What you mean is your counts and studies show little or no difference
between pre- and post-MHL. That's quite distinct from helmets being
ineffective. Helmets are demonstrably and provably effective. Turn the
helemt test rig around, and drop a 12 pound sledge on the hat. That makes
much more clear the energy involved and the degree of protection being
discussed.
> except for the examples like "New York study" previously mentioned in
> this thread. As I said previously:
>
>>> The "New York" study, as cited in the thread, offers two pieces of
>>> measurement. No context is provided in which to understand the
>>> numbers, resulting in the statements being meaningless. It may
>>> prove what you claim, it may not. Without adequate information
>>> that can't be determined whether this is correlation or causation.
>>> I want proof.
>
> The numbers from New York suffer from a lack of believability due to
> not having the necessary information.
You'll have to point out to me where that differs from the holes in other
studies. The population counts don't reveal causation.
>
>> Krygowski's anti-helmet zealotry and propaganda is misguided and
>> irresponsible. He needs to be leashed and muzzled.
>
> His comments about helmets are formed by the preponderance of
> available facts. The zealotry and propaganda in on the side of the
> people making money selling styrofoam hats. Frank's side is just
> pointing out the nudity of the emperor.
>
>> You would do well to distance yourself from his bullshit.
>
> Over the decade of two I've been conversing with Frank, he's been
> right much more often than not. Just because he disagrees with your
> beliefs doesn't mean he's wrong.
No need to explain yourself to me. From my first meeting with him, he's been
a shrill harpy, assaulting sensibilities with nonsense including, just off
the top my head: likening bicycling to rugby, which is played on turf;
mountain biking as a certain cause of death; last and ever present is the
bodyless headform, demonstrating not an inability to learn, but his willful
dishonesty in any all discussions about helmets. If you want a full list of
his sins and offenses, I'll happily dredge them up. They're all quite
amusing, in a queer sort of way. I think amassing them all at once could be
even more amusing.
>
>>>> Helmets don't work, you know what you know and that's that,
>>>
>>> As I've said many times- and which you ignore- is that I'd like
>>> helmets to work. I'd like them to prevent 85% of brain injuries.
>>>
>>>> and yet the NY study finds them near 100% effective. 3% of all
>>>> fatalities in that study was wearing a helmet. What do you suppose
>>>> it means, then?
>>>
>>> The "New York" study, as cited in the thread, offers two pieces of
>>> measurement. No context is provided in which to understand the
>>> numbers, resulting in the statements being meaningless. It may
>>> prove what you claim, it may not. Without adequate information
>>> that can't be determined whether this is correlation or causation.
>>> I want proof.
Impasse. You won't find your proof in the numbers. That's the whole problem.
The figures don't go any farther than what they counted, but everyone seems
perfectly happy to tout them to mean something they don't say.
Tim McNamara
"MikeWhy" <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <i55vi0$t9o$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, "MikeWhy"
> > <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> Then there was the Bell "Courage for your Head" ad in Buycycling
> >>> magazine. It consisted almost entirely of that phrase, plus a
> >>> full- page photo of three or four mountain bikers standing at the
> >>> bottom of a 25'cliff, looking up at the camera. The camera-eye
> >>> view was intended to represent the reader, who - by implication -
> >>> would ride his mountain bike down a 25' vertical cliff because
> >>> his helmet would give him courage.
> >>
> >> You truly are an idiot. These are bicyclists, not face jumpers.
> >> Bicyclists ride down from hills, not jump down onto their heads.
> >> You are a fucking idiot.
> >
> > And you obviously missed the point.
>
> Hardly. I get his point, and it's bullshit.
No, you didn't. You're making that more clear with every post. Indeed,
it's clear you have understood little that has been said to you in these
threads; you appear to have read them looking for the things to rebut
than reading them for comprehensive understanding.
I've been on your side of the argument and was a pro-helmet zealot long
before Scharf came along in this newsgroup. I've made the same points
and statements you have made. Then I looked at the available data and
realized that the pro-helmet side has not proven its case. There is no
good evidence that cycling helmets reduce brain injuries in adult
cyclists by 85%. There is no good evidence that helmets even have a
measurable effect size. There is lots of evidence showing no benefits
at the national and regional level
Adult cycling is also very safe with millions of rides per head injury
(at least per known head injury, which is an issue with all sports and
most recreational activities- as well as just walking around the house
and the world).
> >>> Remember, helmets are certified by a test of a helmeted headform
> >>> - no body attached - dropping roughly just six feet.
> >>
> >> Yup. Six feet is roughly the free fall distance of the head to the
> >> ground. Try that without a helmet. Do us all a favor. I dare you.
> >
> > As your gratuitous nastiness worsens, Mike, it's increasingly
> > difficult to justify reading your posts.
>
> You do what you like, Tim. The energy equivalent of a 12 pound sledge
> dropping 6 feet onto your unhelmetted headform will leave an
> undeniable lasting impression. Tell me loud and clear if you agree
> with Krygowski that this is unimportant and irrelevant.
Mike, your brain is stuck like a record player with a skip. And your
frustration is leading you into violent fantasies. This is not good.
It sounds impressive, of course, when you use hot button words like "12
pound sledge." But remember that if I crash on my head while riding my
bike, it is the energy equivalent of a 220 pound sledge falling six feet
from an initial speed of anywhere from 15 just toodling along to 50 mph
on the faster local descents- around 18 times the force the helmet is
rated for at the low end of that speed range and higher at the faster
end. That puts "relevant" into perspective for you, I hope.
Tim McNamara
"MikeWhy" <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No. "Widespread adoption" to me would be as low as 25% of the
population of cyclists voluntarily wearing helmets. All other things
being equal (no change in riding habits, no change in accommodations for
cyclists on the roads, etc.), at that rate of market penetration, the
effects of helmets on the incidence and prevalence of head injuries
would be very clear- a 21% decrease assuming the claimed effectiveness
of 85%. At 50% market penetration, the decrease would be 42.5%.
> >> The two simply don't reconcile.
> >
> > Correct. Red flag number one in science is when a study's results
> > are dramatically different from everything that came before. There
> > is usually one of two possibilities: the first is that the authors
> > are reporting some significant breakthrough that revolutionizes the
> > field; the other is that the authors published a flawed study. In
> > the vast majority of such incidents, the latter is the case.
> >
> > So, we have multiple studies showing an effect size of just about
> > nil and one study showing an effect size approaching 100%. Clearly
> > there is a problem here.
> >
> >> The fact remains that helmet wear in a free society, the present
> >> example being NY where helmet use is not mandatory, is indicative
> >> that the wearer is very significantly less likely to die while
> >> bicycling. They've self-selected themselves out of the fatality
> >> pool.
> >
> > Mike, your lack of understanding about the problems in interpreting
> > what those two numbers mean is no longer excusable. It's been
> > explained to you several times but you ignore it, clinging
> > desperately to those numbers are "proof" that helmets work. You're
> > exercising religion, not science.
>
> First, I never, not once, asserted a population count as "proof" of
> anything, except that liars indeed do figure and abuse numbers.
> Helmets work because of simple physics,
And the explanations of the failure of the physics to reconcile with the
claimed 85% effectiveness (let alone the 97% you have been suggesting is
nearer the truth) has fallen on deaf ears. The physics of brains and
helmets are such that helmets cannot prevent 85% of brain injuries. If
you want to include minor injuries like scrapes, abrasions and cuts to
the list of "head injuries" then the numbers come up quite a bit.
> not because a bean count gives them the nod. It seems to me that
> you're the one doing the clinging.
The "bean count" is where the truth of the effectiveness of helmets is
to be found, Mike. How do they work in the real world of cyclists
riding bikes? Citing a preponderance of data accumulated over years to
one poorly explicated pair of numbers is hardly clinging; the reverse is
in fact true.
> The studies you point to are before and after MHL. I pointed out
> earlier that behavior and attitude differences between those who
> choose to wear helmets likely differ from those who consistently
> choose to not wear helmets. Further thoughts below.
Now you're hedging.
> >> You can't eliminate helmet effectiveness, just as I haven't
> >> eliminated behavioral or other factors.
> >
> > You're also not separating them adequately.
>
> The effect on helmet involved fatalities, already small in the
> population, is swamped by the noise introduced with MHL. If you've
> addressed that, I've missed it. I have a study on one hand that
> shows, albeit unexplained, that helmet wear correlates almost 100%
> negatively with fatality, far beyond any reasonable expectation of
> measurement or accounting error. The only counter you've given is
> that this can't be right, simply because it disagrees with your other
> studies. Do you see the pot calling kettle black?
No, I see someone who doesn't understand how to interpret scientific
data.
Let's assume that 97% of dead New York City cyclists were not wearing
helmets. For convenience, we'll assume an n of 100, so 97 non-helmeted
cyclists and 3 helmeted cyclists.
What killed the non-helmeted cyclists? If any of them did not die from
a head injury, then the helmet issue is irrelevant in those cases
(perhaps they died from a heart attack or a stroke, a severe asthma
attack, riding home after a meal containing bad oysters, an allergic
reaction to something). Helmets do nothing for these causes of death.
How many of the 97 died from something irrelevant to helmet use? The
data you cited doesn't tell us.
Let's talk about those who died as a result of trauma. What trauma
killed them? A ruptured spleen from falling on the handlebars?
Punctured lungs from broken ribs after the taxi plowed into the cyclist?
Multiple organ trauma from being rolled under an SUV? The data you
cited doesn't tell us.
And finally, how big was n in the study? If n was 11 or 1100, it makes
a huge difference as to the reliability and validity of that 97% rate of
"protection."
How was the data collected and by whom? If the helmet was removed at
the scene by first responders and left behind (which I have witnessed
because the helmet interfered with getting the person [a skateboarder]
strapped onto the backboard), did the ER doc or the coroner correctly
identify whether the rider was wearing a helmet? If the helmet came off
in the accident, was that noticed and correctly recorded? We do not
know how the victims were classified into helmeted versus helmetless
because the data you cited does not tell us.
Without this type of information and much more, we cannot assess the
reliability and validity of the study you cited.
> >> Helmets are demonstrably effective in reducing incidence and
> >> severity of injury.
> >
> > No, they're not. The evidence shows little to no effectiveness,
>
> What you mean is your counts and studies show little or no difference
> between pre- and post-MHL. That's quite distinct from helmets being
> ineffective. Helmets are demonstrably and provably effective. Turn
> the helemt test rig around, and drop a 12 pound sledge on the hat.
> That makes much more clear the energy involved and the degree of
> protection being discussed.
This fallacy has been pointed out to you time and again yet you fail to
comprehend the basic physics involved. Let me summarize what I wrote in
another post: if I crash on my head, it is not a 12 pound force falling
6 feet- it is a 220 pound force falling 6 feet. That is at a minimum a
force 18 times higher than the helmet is rated for. And the helmet
testing assumes the crash starts at a velocity of 0 mph, whereas a
cyclist can easily be going 15-25 on level ground and 50 mph on a
descent. This of course increases the forces involved.
Do you finally see the problem with the physics?
> > except for the examples like "New York study" previously mentioned
> > in this thread. As I said previously:
> >
> >>> The "New York" study, as cited in the thread, offers two pieces
> >>> of measurement. No context is provided in which to understand
> >>> the numbers, resulting in the statements being meaningless. It
> >>> may prove what you claim, it may not. Without adequate
> >>> information that can't be determined whether this is correlation
> >>> or causation. I want proof.
> >
> > The numbers from New York suffer from a lack of believability due
> > to not having the necessary information.
>
> You'll have to point out to me where that differs from the holes in
> other studies. The population counts don't reveal causation.
Causation is interesting and valuable in its own right but is not
necessary for determining the effectiveness of helmets. What is
necessary is the incidence and prevalence of head injuries before and
after helmets. You don't have to have a MHL, BTW; you only have to have
helmets being sold to and worn by cyclists with some way of measuring
the percentage of cyclists wearing helmets. MHLs provide the advantage
of a fairly specific date certain about helmet use.
> >> Krygowski's anti-helmet zealotry and propaganda is misguided and
> >> irresponsible. He needs to be leashed and muzzled.
> >
> > His comments about helmets are formed by the preponderance of
> > available facts. The zealotry and propaganda in on the side of the
> > people making money selling styrofoam hats. Frank's side is just
> > pointing out the nudity of the emperor.
> >
> >> You would do well to distance yourself from his bullshit.
> >
> > Over the decade of two I've been conversing with Frank, he's been
> > right much more often than not. Just because he disagrees with
> > your beliefs doesn't mean he's wrong.
>
> No need to explain yourself to me. From my first meeting with him,
> he's been a shrill harpy, assaulting sensibilities with nonsense
> including, just off the top my head: likening bicycling to rugby,
> which is played on turf; mountain biking as a certain cause of death;
> last and ever present is the bodyless headform, demonstrating not an
> inability to learn, but his willful dishonesty in any all discussions
> about helmets. If you want a full list of his sins and offenses, I'll
> happily dredge them up. They're all quite amusing, in a queer sort of
> way. I think amassing them all at once could be even more amusing.
Hmm. You've pretty much told me what I need to know about your own
thinking.
> >>>> Helmets don't work, you know what you know and that's that,
> >>>
> >>> As I've said many times- and which you ignore- is that I'd like
> >>> helmets to work. I'd like them to prevent 85% of brain injuries.
> >>>
> >>>> and yet the NY study finds them near 100% effective. 3% of all
> >>>> fatalities in that study was wearing a helmet. What do you
> >>>> suppose it means, then?
> >>>
> >>> The "New York" study, as cited in the thread, offers two pieces
> >>> of measurement. No context is provided in which to understand
> >>> the numbers, resulting in the statements being meaningless. It
> >>> may prove what you claim, it may not. Without adequate
> >>> information that can't be determined whether this is correlation
> >>> or causation. I want proof.
>
> Impasse. You won't find your proof in the numbers.
Then the numbers you cited are useless and prove nothing. And that's
the problem with your clinging to them.
> That's the whole problem. The figures don't go any farther than what
> they counted, but everyone seems perfectly happy to tout them to mean
> something they don't say.
Unfortunately, the preponderance of data is very clear about what it
does mean. The truth is just unacceptable to you, hence the impasse you
experience.
MikeWhy
> In article <i56h5j$dmq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "MikeWhy" <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> In article <i55vi0$t9o$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, "MikeWhy"
>>> <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> Then there was the Bell "Courage for your Head" ad in Buycycling
>>>>> magazine. It consisted almost entirely of that phrase, plus a
>>>>> full- page photo of three or four mountain bikers standing at the
>>>>> bottom of a 25'cliff, looking up at the camera. The camera-eye
>>>>> view was intended to represent the reader, who - by implication -
>>>>> would ride his mountain bike down a 25' vertical cliff because
>>>>> his helmet would give him courage.
>>>>
>>>> You truly are an idiot. These are bicyclists, not face jumpers.
>>>> Bicyclists ride down from hills, not jump down onto their heads.
>>>> You are a fucking idiot.
>>>
>>> And you obviously missed the point.
>>
>> Hardly. I get his point, and it's bullshit.
>
> No, you didn't. You're making that more clear with every post.
> Indeed, it's clear you have understood little that has been said to
> you in these threads; you appear to have read them looking for the
> things to rebut than reading them for comprehensive understanding.
This is beyond tiresome. I've been hearing the same risk compensation squawk
and squeal from hatless motorcyclists since basically the dawn of time. You
guys are disinterested amateurs in comparison. Yes, I expressed that I
haven't seen fear propaganda in helmet advertising. I'm still unmoved. If
the moron jumps off the cliff rather than ride down because of his
courageous head, I haven't anything to add. I already expressed that the
human species is doomed, in relation to weight gain and MHL backlash. We're
doomed, and Frank's just the tip of the iceberg.
> I've been on your side of the argument and was a pro-helmet zealot
> long before Scharf came along in this newsgroup. I've made the same
> points and statements you have made. Then I looked at the available
> data and realized that the pro-helmet side has not proven its case.
> There is no good evidence that cycling helmets reduce brain injuries
> in adult cyclists by 85%. There is no good evidence that helmets
> even have a measurable effect size. There is lots of evidence
> showing no benefits at the national and regional level
>
> Adult cycling is also very safe with millions of rides per head injury
> (at least per known head injury, which is an issue with all sports and
> most recreational activities- as well as just walking around the house
> and the world).
Yeah, no kidding. I still ride with my kids from time to time. Have, since
they were tots. It never once occured to me I was putting them at inordinate
risk.
>
>>>>> Remember, helmets are certified by a test of a helmeted headform
>>>>> - no body attached - dropping roughly just six feet.
>>>>
>>>> Yup. Six feet is roughly the free fall distance of the head to the
>>>> ground. Try that without a helmet. Do us all a favor. I dare you.
>>>
>>> As your gratuitous nastiness worsens, Mike, it's increasingly
>>> difficult to justify reading your posts.
>>
>> You do what you like, Tim. The energy equivalent of a 12 pound sledge
>> dropping 6 feet onto your unhelmetted headform will leave an
>> undeniable lasting impression. Tell me loud and clear if you agree
>> with Krygowski that this is unimportant and irrelevant.
>
> Mike, your brain is stuck like a record player with a skip. And your
> frustration is leading you into violent fantasies. This is not good.
Save that for your patients. Destructive testing of helmets is inherently
violent.
>
> It sounds impressive, of course, when you use hot button words like
> "12 pound sledge."
Yes, I meant for it to impress. No, it isn't exaggerated even the slightest.
That is exactly the test. Straight, ball peen, and cross peen, 12 pound
sledge, corresponding to flat, ball, and curb test targets. "Bodyless
headform" is so abstract, so much easier to dodge behind. Quit your dodging.
> But remember that if I crash on my head while
> riding my bike, it is the energy equivalent of a 220 pound sledge
> falling six feet from an initial speed of anywhere from 15 just
> toodling along to 50 mph on the faster local descents- around 18
> times the force the helmet is rated for at the low end of that speed
> range and higher at the faster end.
If you're at all able to use more than the '+' key on a calculator, you'll
find that just your bodyless head mass, let alone the full 220 lbs, is
pudding at 50 mph in any helmet made, let alone conceived. This is hopeless.
We're done, right?
> That puts "relevant" into
> perspective for you, I hope.
Thanks for the perspective and relevance. Toodles, Tim.
MikeWhy
The assumption is that they can count and didn't falsify their findings. I
don't see that being seriously challenged.
I can save you a lot time and typing. These are all givens. Really, it
doesn't take a rocket scientist to see any of this. The assumption is they
know how to count, and they didn't falsify their findings.
>
>>>> Helmets are demonstrably effective in reducing incidence and
>>>> severity of injury.
>>>
>>> No, they're not. The evidence shows little to no effectiveness,
>>
>> What you mean is your counts and studies show little or no difference
>> between pre- and post-MHL. That's quite distinct from helmets being
>> ineffective. Helmets are demonstrably and provably effective. Turn
>> the helemt test rig around, and drop a 12 pound sledge on the hat.
>> That makes much more clear the energy involved and the degree of
>> protection being discussed.
>
> This fallacy has been pointed out to you time and again yet you fail
> to comprehend the basic physics involved. Let me summarize what I
> wrote in another post: if I crash on my head, it is not a 12 pound
> force falling 6 feet- it is a 220 pound force falling 6 feet. That
> is at a minimum a force 18 times higher than the helmet is rated for.
> And the helmet testing assumes the crash starts at a velocity of 0
> mph, whereas a cyclist can easily be going 15-25 on level ground and
> 50 mph on a descent. This of course increases the forces involved.
>
> Do you finally see the problem with the physics?
Tim, my bachelor's was in structural engineering. It's you who has a problem
with the physics, not I.
The horizontal component is separable from the vertical component. I slid
100+ yards in ballistic nylon from 70 mph on a freeway. Simple, constant
deceleration would take 6 seconds to slow from 100 ft/sec to 0. The forces
involved are not at all not catastrophic, roughly 1/2 G, just tossing the
round numbers in my head without a calculator. The other eggheads reading
this will correct me if I'm the slightest bit mistaken. (s = 1/2 * a * t^2).
The vertical component in a simple fall is at most free fall, incidentally
the design specification for helmets. The forces and decelerations here can
be catastrophic because it is an impact event, involving a very large change
in momentum in a very short time. Right, wrong, or indifferent, this is the
impact that helmets are designed to protect against. The test standards are
based on some presumed or empirical limits of survivability, something on
the order of 300 to 400 G's for 2 or 3 milliseconds.
I can see where it's easy to ridicule the design rationale without an
intuitive appreciation of the magnitudes involved. Knowing the limitations,
I'm good with it. If I thought I could do better, I would have already taken
the market and long since retired. As for the bean counting, I'll leave that
now to someone with a better suited disposition. I don't mean this as a jab,
but those numbers that are so precious to you is just so much fiction. The
physical world, which I can feel, measure, and verify, repeatably, is far
more to my liking.
MikeWhy
I forgot to say earlier... It's not my impasse. The impasse is expecting
proof and truth to emerge from two disparate sets of numbers dueling out
their versions of reality, all the while forgetting that they're imperfect
models of what we're really after. I merely marvelled at the astonishing
finding that helmet use tabulates as it does to show near complete
effectiveness, and wondered how they reconcile with your alternate reality.
It turns out that they don't, and won't, reconcile. You just blow them
off -- no impasse! -- because they don't compute. Likely, you're not
altogether different from me on this. You can blow them off only because,
deep down, you understand them to be just so much fiction, and not reality.
The truth, contrary to your statement, is entirely acceptable to me.
Peter Cole
> What killed the non-helmeted cyclists? If any of them did not die from
> a head injury, then the helmet issue is irrelevant in those cases
> (perhaps they died from a heart attack or a stroke, a severe asthma
> attack, riding home after a meal containing bad oysters, an allergic
> reaction to something). Helmets do nothing for these causes of death.
> How many of the 97 died from something irrelevant to helmet use? The
> data you cited doesn't tell us.
OK, I'll dip a toe into this. The flaw with the data that I see is a
causal one. We may accept that (roughly) the lack of helmet use
correlated to a 4x increase in fatalities, but we don't know the causal
relationship. It is likely that the non-helmet wearers are less risk
averse, for instance. If there was a profile on helmet/non-helmet
cyclists quantifying other potential risk factors (drinking, no lights,
wrong way, sidewalk, etc.), that might put the matter to rest by
eliminating or implicating linked causalities. As it stands, I don't
think it proves the case.
Frank Krygowski
> I've been hearing the same risk compensation squawk
> and squeal from hatless motorcyclists since basically the dawn of time.
And I take it from your phrasing that you believe there is no such
thing as risk compensation?
That would imply that you've not thought about the issue beyond your
typical reflex manner: "I don't like it, so it can't exist." You
certainly haven't read _Risk_ by John Adams, who was among the first
to demonstrate the effect with his countless examples. You apparently
haven't read this rather famous piece.
http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html
You haven't read the claims from previous posters to this group,
saying "I'd never ride that way without my helmet." And you haven't
read the similar claim in the NY Times article at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html
> Yes, I expressed that I haven't seen fear propaganda in helmet advertising.
Then you're too new to this issue.
Manufacturers have largely omitted the fear component of their
advertising. I suspect that this is due to two factors: First,
they've successfully recruited thousands of others to handle the
"Danger! Danger!" propaganda. (You seem to be one of them.) Second,
I suspect their lawyers have influenced the content of their ads.
Whereas they once focused on the supposed protection afforded by their
products, they now focus on things like "Light!" and "Stylish!" and
"Fast!" and "Armstrong wears it!" This way, failure to protect
carries less liability.
> Yeah, no kidding. I still ride with my kids from time to time. Have, since
> they were tots. It never once occured to me I was putting them at inordinate
> risk.
Would you be putting them at inordinate risk if they rode wearing only
baseball caps? Most people who share your opinions thing that risk
would be very large - despite all the data to the contrary. OTOH,
taking those same kids for a walk in the city? Why, no problem!
But in the US, there are over three times as many fatalities per km
walking, compared to cycling. And roughly 75% of pedestrian
fatalities are due to head injuries, just as for cyclists.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
> Tim, my bachelor's was in structural engineering. It's you who has a problem
> with the physics, not I.
It's been said that mechanical engineers design weapons. Structural
engineers design targets.
One of the significant differences is dynamics. You might do well to
take courses involving things that actually move - courses in
dynamics, mechanisms, etc. And you could certainly use some help with
statistics and data interpretation.
The fact is, a bike crash is a chaotic event. Even a double
pendulum's motion is chaotic - i.e., practically speaking,
unpredictable. The much greater number of degrees of freedom in a
human crashing a bicycle means that there's no deterministic way of
predicting the head's impact speed, should that impact occur.
This is certainly true in the case of collision with a moving car,
which is the cause of the great majority of truly serious bike
injuries (as few as they are). There's no calculating exactly how
hard the head will hit. But it's foolish to pretend that when = say -
hit by a car cutting across one's path (a left cross in the US), that
the head's impact will be no more than that of a simple two-meter
drop.
If we can't calculate impact speed for real world impacts, how can we
decide whether helmets are sufficient to protect against those
impacts? This is where data is used. We can gather large amounts of
data, interpret it with competent use of statistics and observe the
effects of helmet use. And that's been done.
"Fatalities in New York City in a few years" doesn't really qualify.
Bike fatalities are damned rare - only 750 per year in the entire US -
so the number in any one city is tiny. To get a handle on chaos, you
need hundreds, perhaps thousands of data points.
That's what's summarized in this table. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1041.html
If helmets are nearly 100% effective, as you claim, why can we not see
the benefit?
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
> >>> <boat042-nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>> Then there was the Bell "Courage for your Head" ad in Buycycling
> >>>>> magazine. It consisted almost entirely of that phrase, plus a
> >>>>> full- page photo of three or four mountain bikers standing at the
> >>>>> bottom of a 25'cliff, looking up at the camera. The camera-eye
> >>>>> view was intended to represent the reader, who - by implication -
> >>>>> would ride his mountain bike down a 25' vertical cliff because
> >>>>> his helmet would give him courage.
>
> >>>> You truly are an idiot. These are bicyclists, not face jumpers.
> >>>> Bicyclists ride down from hills, not jump down onto their heads.
> >>>> You are a fucking idiot.
>
> >>> And you obviously missed the point.
>
> >> Hardly. I get his point, and it's bullshit.
>
> > No, you didn't. You're making that more clear with every post.
> > Indeed, it's clear you have understood little that has been said to
> > you in these threads; you appear to have read them looking for the
> > things to rebut than reading them for comprehensive understanding.
>
> This is beyond tiresome.
Isn't that the truth!
<snip>
Helmets can do some good sometimes. We pretty much all agree on that,
right? I think they can do a *lot* of good in some potential
situations. Possibly even a tremendous lot of good. The kind of good
that would have you (or your surviving loved ones) very grateful for
it. But there are still people who will always dismiss this because
you can't prove what didn't happen. Fine.
The probability of a typical bicyclist benefiting from a helmet's
protective capacity is not high, but that probability is virtually
impossible to predict for *every* individual bicyclist. There is a
downside / cost to wearing a helmet, but I think that's very probably
at least as overinflated by some people as they themselves complain so
vociferously that the upside is by others. But the worth of the
protection is not just weighed against the likelihood of it being
needed. It is also weighed against the potential cost of not having
it if and when it is needed.
This is all pretty much incredibly incalculable for any individual.
As far as I know, only one individual here is arguing for compulsory
helmet use (which certainly has a much greater downside than any
individual[s] choosing to use a helmet), and that is just an obvious
troll anyway.
So just knock it off!
You guys who think bicycle helmets are a bad idea go ahead and argue
against their compulsory use. If you feel so strongly that they're
bad even for individual use by choice, go ahead and try to work to
make people better off however you feel you have to, but don't go on
endlessly about it here with your only decent argument really being
against compulsory use policies.
You guys who think bicycle helmets *are* a good idea quit nagging the
other guys to wear one... um... except... I don't think you are doing
that here, so...
You guys go somewhere else to give hell to "helmet promoters" who
don't really know what they're talking about.
Andre Jute
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > What killed the non-helmeted cyclists?
In three quarters of the 225 cases, a head injury. Why don't you read
the study? Why don't you read the summary I published about ten times
now.
> If any of them did not die from
> > a head injury, then the helmet issue is irrelevant in those cases
> > (perhaps they died from a heart attack or a stroke, a severe asthma
> > attack, riding home after a meal containing bad oysters, an allergic
> > reaction to something).
This sort of smoke is neither science nor statistics. The numbers have
been published. Why don't you read the New York study or the summary
of the relevant points I've repeatedly published?
>Helmets do nothing for these causes of death.
Death by oyster poisoning wasn't counted in this study. Read the
study! Read the summary I published.
> > How many of the 97 died from something irrelevant to helmet use?
It was 97 deaths, it was 97 per cent of 225 fatalities that didn't
wear a helmet. The New York study, you would know if you had read it
or read my summary, also conforms to the USA universe of 75% of
fatalities having head injuries. You could, if you had read the study,
dear Timmie, have done simple arithmetic for yourself.
97/100*75/100*225 tells us that 164 New Yorkers died unnecessarily in
those eight years because they were not wearing a helmet. So the
answer to your question is, 225-164=61 cyclist died in the same period
from cause unrelated to helmet wear.
Bad oysters never came into it. Nor jumping form the top of the
Chrysler Building, nor riding over the Niagara Falls. Just straight up
head injuries in 75% of cases.
>The
> > data you cited doesn't tell us.
Oh yes, it does. As I've just demonstrated. Again. As I've
demonstrated from the beginning. You, dear Timmie, have simply stuck
your head in the sand and decided to ignore the data, as if by
ignoring it you can make it go away.
Peter Cole then says:
> OK, I'll dip a toe into this.
Dunno that it's worth it. Timmie and Franki-boy have taken their
position and no amount of contrary data or argument will shift them.
They're simply refusing to argue the facts. McNamara has stuck his
head in the sand, and Krygowski simply lies about what studies say, as
he did in the Crocker and Western Austalian cases where you and I
caught him out, and so often elsewhere.
>The flaw with the data that I see is a
> causal one. We may accept that (roughly) the lack of helmet use
> correlated to a 4x increase in fatalities,
What the New York data tells us is that the absence of a helmet leads
to a *minimum* 4x increase in fatalities. Projection of the
differential helmet wearing among the fatalities and the seriously
injured, modified by the known factor of head injuries in fatalities
of 0.75, further suggests that in New York annually some tens of
cyclists could be save from death by wearing a helmet, and nationally
perhaps up to 400 cyclists ditto.
>but we don't know the causal
> relationship.
75% of fatalities somehow involve head injuries. That's agreed by
everyone. We also all clearly agree that there are some impacts in
which a helmet, or for that matter full body armour, will not save the
cyclist. But if head injuries could be prevented from coming serious
enough to be fatal in on half the cases, we're talking about 200 odd
cyclists every year who could live if they wore a helmet but instead
are dying. That makes Krygowski and McNamara's anti-helmet zealotry
straight-up murder. Not that they care; both of them have repeatedly
told us 200 to 400 cyclists are "too few" to save every year.
>It is likely that the non-helmet wearers are less risk
> averse, for instance. If there was a profile on helmet/non-helmet
> cyclists quantifying other potential risk factors (drinking, no lights,
> wrong way, sidewalk, etc.), that might put the matter to rest by
> eliminating or implicating linked causalities.
Oh no. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that in a
full universe study over eight years in a major city like New York,
drunken or unlit or reckless drivers were any less represented among
the fatalities than the very seriously injured. Quite the contrary:
the circumstance of the study, and its scope of only fatalities and
very serious injuries, are in themselves cause to believe that drunks,
unlit, scofflaw and reckless cyclists are evenly represented in both.
And *still* the figures show that wearing a helmet give a cyclist a 4x
advantage in surviving a serious accident!
Furthermore: One of the side benefits of a mandatory helmet law which
is enforced will be to enhance the enforcement of traffic law
compliance by cyclists, no doubt gladdening Krygowski's stony fascist
heart.
>As it stands, I don't
> think it proves the case.
Then you haven't grasped what you're looking at. That New York study
is pure gold, universal by its size and length, unchallengable by its
neutrality, convincing by meeting the one uncontested control (three
quarters of fatalities show head injuries), as a result of this
combination of advantages quite overwhelming.
Andre Jute
Statistics are the Song of Lorelei
Tim McNamara
"MikeWhy" <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Then you're not paying attention. The numbers in the "New York study"
that you cited are invalid for the reason pointed out to you at least a
half-dozen times by now. Those numbers are meaningless as they stand.
These things are not "givens," they are required to be explicated in
standard scientific practice. You would do well to learn about these
things- it would help you understand whether the study you are reading
is worth the paper it's printed on.
G in this instance is a useless number without knowing mass. The real
issue is kinetic energy and energy absorption and dissipation (which,
given your background, you already know). An inch of styrofoam can only
absorb so much energy. A bike crash can readily exceed- and probably
normally exceeds- the limits of the bike helmet. If you're lucky, the
impact is within the parameters of the helmet.
> I can see where it's easy to ridicule the design rationale without an
> intuitive appreciation of the magnitudes involved. Knowing the
> limitations, I'm good with it. If I thought I could do better, I
> would have already taken the market and long since retired. As for
> the bean counting, I'll leave that now to someone with a better
> suited disposition. I don't mean this as a jab, but those numbers
> that are so precious to you is just so much fiction. The physical
> world, which I can feel, measure, and verify, repeatably, is far more
> to my liking.
Mike, measuring and verifying repeatably is the purpose of the numbers
your disparage. They show the performance of helmets in the real world.
Your BS in structural engineering apparently overlooked this aspect.
Were they not concerned with how things actually perform in real life
rather than in the lab?
Tim McNamara
"MikeWhy" <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Heh. You're picking the wrong side as the "alternate reality."
> It turns out that they don't, and won't, reconcile.
And if you understood how this science works, you'd grok the problem
with the "New York study."
> You just blow them off -- no impasse! -- because they don't compute.
I question them and want the rest of the information to be able to judge
their validity and reliability. That's not "blowing them off." You, on
the other hand, are blowing off thousands of data points collected over
decades in multiple studies because you like one study's results better.
You're practicing junk science, Mike.
> Likely, you're not altogether different from me on this. You can blow
> them off only because, deep down, you understand them to be just so
> much fiction, and not reality. The truth, contrary to your statement,
> is entirely acceptable to me.
And yet you reject the clear, demonstrated truth. Odd.
Andre Jute
> "Fatalities in New York City in a few years" doesn't really qualify.
> Bike fatalities are damned rare - only 750 per year in the entire US -
> so the number in any one city is tiny. To get a handle on chaos, you
> need hundreds, perhaps thousands of data points.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Countering Frank Krygowski's lies can consume one's life, so most of
us have just stopped bothering. But this example is too gross to let
pass.
Actually, Franki-boy, the New York study was of 225 cyclist
fatalities, of which only 3% wore helmets, and another 333 cyclists
seriously injured, of which 13% wore helmets. That is a total of 558
cases in whose data it is strongly suggested that wearing a helmet
gives a cyclist a 433% greater chance of surviving even a serious
accident.
Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf
Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free and on my bike since 1992
Greener than thou!
Tim McNamara
Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
One of the "explanations" offered to excuse the lack of effectiveness of
bike helmets is "risk compensation." The gist of this is that helmeted
riders feel safer and thus take more risks, resulting in more crashes
and more head injuries. That's the exact opposite of what you suggest.
We can't have it both ways.
Tim McNamara
"MikeWhy" <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, Mike, on that we agree.
> I've been hearing the same risk compensation
> squawk and squeal from hatless motorcyclists since basically the dawn
> of time.
I didn't mention risk compensation until now. I don't recall Frank
mentioning risk compensation (which BTW is one of the apologia
stratagems for pro-helmet zealots to explain why helmets don't show any
benefit in the studies; the folks questioning helmet effectiveness don't
need to resort to this nonsense). You're starting to make things up.
> You guys are disinterested amateurs in comparison. Yes, I
> expressed that I haven't seen fear propaganda in helmet advertising.
> I'm still unmoved.
Then you haven't been looking. I've been seeing this in ads and in
editorial opinion in bike magazines since the mid-70s.
> If the moron jumps off the cliff rather than ride down because of his
> courageous head, I haven't anything to add. I already expressed that
> the human species is doomed, in relation to weight gain and MHL
> backlash. We're doomed, and Frank's just the tip of the iceberg.
Good grief.
> > I've been on your side of the argument and was a pro-helmet zealot
> > long before Scharf came along in this newsgroup. I've made the
> > same points and statements you have made. Then I looked at the
> > available data and realized that the pro-helmet side has not proven
> > its case. There is no good evidence that cycling helmets reduce
> > brain injuries in adult cyclists by 85%. There is no good evidence
> > that helmets even have a measurable effect size. There is lots of
> > evidence showing no benefits at the national and regional level
> >
> > Adult cycling is also very safe with millions of rides per head
> > injury (at least per known head injury, which is an issue with all
> > sports and most recreational activities- as well as just walking
> > around the house and the world).
>
> Yeah, no kidding. I still ride with my kids from time to time. Have,
> since they were tots. It never once occured to me I was putting them
> at inordinate risk.
You're not. Being sedentary playing video games puts them at much
greater risk than riding a bike.
> >>>>> Remember, helmets are certified by a test of a helmeted
> >>>>> headform - no body attached - dropping roughly just six feet.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yup. Six feet is roughly the free fall distance of the head to
> >>>> the ground. Try that without a helmet. Do us all a favor. I dare
> >>>> you.
> >>>
> >>> As your gratuitous nastiness worsens, Mike, it's increasingly
> >>> difficult to justify reading your posts.
> >>
> >> You do what you like, Tim. The energy equivalent of a 12 pound
> >> sledge dropping 6 feet onto your unhelmetted headform will leave
> >> an undeniable lasting impression. Tell me loud and clear if you
> >> agree with Krygowski that this is unimportant and irrelevant.
> >
> > Mike, your brain is stuck like a record player with a skip. And
> > your frustration is leading you into violent fantasies. This is
> > not good.
>
> Save that for your patients.
Unfortunately you're starting to sound like some of them.
> Destructive testing of helmets is inherently violent.
They don't do destructive testing of helmets for BHSI certification. If
they did, it would be far more helpful because it would seek the upper
limits of helmet protection.
Thinking about bashing people on the head with a hammer or encouraging
them to smash their heads into the ground is a violent fantasy, Mike.
As I said, it's not good.
> > It sounds impressive, of course, when you use hot button words like
> > "12 pound sledge."
>
> Yes, I meant for it to impress. No, it isn't exaggerated even the
> slightest. That is exactly the test. Straight, ball peen, and cross
> peen, 12 pound sledge, corresponding to flat, ball, and curb test
> targets. "Bodyless headform" is so abstract, so much easier to dodge
> behind. Quit your dodging.
Quit your bullshit. You know that this impact is specifically within
the range for which a BHSI certified helmet is certified, so it will
absorb that impact. That shows nothing, since a real world impact is
likely to be much greater. Tell you what, let's reverse your violent
fantasy. If I drop a 220 pound sledge on your head from 6 feet, is a
stytofoam hat going to prevent a head injury? Quit your dodging.
> > But remember that if I crash on my head while riding my bike, it is
> > the energy equivalent of a 220 pound sledge falling six feet from
> > an initial speed of anywhere from 15 just toodling along to 50 mph
> > on the faster local descents- around 18 times the force the helmet
> > is rated for at the low end of that speed range and higher at the
> > faster end.
>
> If you're at all able to use more than the '+' key on a calculator,
> you'll find that just your bodyless head mass, let alone the full 220
> lbs, is pudding at 50 mph in any helmet made, let alone conceived.
> This is hopeless. We're done, right?
That's pretty much been the gist all along, Mike. I'm glad you finally
got it. Helmets are under-designed for real world protection and that's
why they show no effect size in the studies. The problem, of course, is
that an adequate helmet would be impractical for a bicyclist.
> > That puts "relevant" into perspective for you, I hope.
>
> Thanks for the perspective and relevance. Toodles, Tim.
Cheers.
Andre Jute
> As far as I know, only one individual here is arguing for compulsory
> helmet use
Whoever are you talking about, Danno?
Dan O
Let me qualify that: I absolutely do appreciate thoughtful
discussion. It's the crazy vehement judgmental-ism (on any side) that
spirals out of... well, reasonableness.
Tim McNamara
<72539d44-e8cc-4ade...@v6g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Dan O <danov...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes. As I've said, for example, I think that bike helmets probably
provide reasonable protection for young children as they are fairly
likely to crash within the parameters of the helmet's design. They are
short (heads less than 6 feet above the ground) and they tend to be
going slowly. And they are more likely to fall over than an adult.
Even preventing abrasions and scalp lacerations is helpful.
> I think they can do a *lot* of good in some potential
> situations. Possibly even a tremendous lot of good. The kind of
> good that would have you (or your surviving loved ones) very grateful
> for it. But there are still people who will always dismiss this
> because you can't prove what didn't happen. Fine.
>
> The probability of a typical bicyclist benefiting from a helmet's
> protective capacity is not high, but that probability is virtually
> impossible to predict for *every* individual bicyclist.
As Frank has pointed out, a bicycle crash is a chaotic event and it is
impossible to predict whether a cyclist will strike his head at all and,
if he does, how hard that impact is going to be. So it is impossible to
predict whether the rider would have a brain injury with or without a
helmet.
The likelihood is that the typical bicyclist is not going to crash and
test their helmet at all. This is not a bad thing, of course- in fact
it's a great thing. The best way to prevent brain injuries while
cycling is to just say no to hitting your head on something. Develop
good skills and stay aware of what's around you. It's not 100%
foolproof but the odds are strongly in your favor.
> There is a downside / cost to wearing a helmet, but I think that's
> very probably at least as overinflated by some people as they
> themselves complain so vociferously that the upside is by others.
> But the worth of the protection is not just weighed against the
> likelihood of it being needed. It is also weighed against the
> potential cost of not having it if and when it is needed.
This does not answer the fundamental issue of why widespread helmet use
does not decrease the numbers of brain injuries associated with cycling.
> This is all pretty much incredibly incalculable for any individual.
> As far as I know, only one individual here is arguing for compulsory
> helmet use (which certainly has a much greater downside than any
> individual[s] choosing to use a helmet), and that is just an obvious
> troll anyway.
Nobody in the newsgroup has recently put forth an argument for MHLs. I
recall doing so about 15 years ago, back when I was a pro-helmet zealot.
> So just knock it off!
If you want to wear a helmet I am certainly not going to stop you.
Heck, I wear a helmet sometimes (usually to keep the wife happy), I just
don't expect it to provide any protection. I also sometimes wear one as
a sun hat for long rides on warm days because it's more comfortable than
my cycling caps, having ventilation as helmets do. Keeps the top of my
head from sunburn.
I don't rely on a helmet to save my life, prevent a brain injury, etc,
because I know it is not likely to do that. I rely on my cycling skills
and my awareness of what's around me while I am riding.
> You guys who think bicycle helmets are a bad idea go ahead and argue
> against their compulsory use. If you feel so strongly that they're
> bad even for individual use by choice, go ahead and try to work to
> make people better off however you feel you have to, but don't go on
> endlessly about it here with your only decent argument really being
> against compulsory use policies.
No, the key argument is that there is no good evidence that they do what
is claimed in the advertising and editorial opinion.
> You guys who think bicycle helmets *are* a good idea quit nagging the
> other guys to wear one... um... except... I don't think you are doing
> that here, so...
Not that I've noticed. Well, not directly anyway. There's an
implication, of course.
> You guys go somewhere else to give hell to "helmet promoters" who
> don't really know what they're talking about.
Ah, "you don't agree with me so go away" being the point. Sounds like
most of the drivel we hear from right wing politicians these days.
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> One of the "explanations" offered to excuse the lack of effectiveness of
> bike helmets is "risk compensation." The gist of this is that helmeted
> riders feel safer and thus take more risks, resulting in more crashes
> and more head injuries. That's the exact opposite of what you suggest.
> We can't have it both ways.
I think it's possible for both effects to exist. That is, it's
possible that lack of helmet use is correlated with cycling while
drunk, gross disobedience of traffic laws, and generally ignorant
cycling (riding wrong-way on sidewalks even where technically legal,
riding unaware of surface hazards, etc.). Simultaneously, it's
possible for people who do wear helmets to truly believe that they are
nearly 100% effective - falling for the propaganda of Thompson &
Rivara, plus Jute. Those people might be more knowledgeable than the
first crowd, but still take risks they would avoid if unhelmeted.
In essence, the above proposes two different types of cyclists, but
that's a bit oversimplified. There's probability the two sets
overlap.
Personally, I'd guess the first type are at far more risk than the
second type. But I think both types contribute to the effects we see.
Incidentally, this is something that would be interesting to discuss.
I don't think it's thoroughly understood. Such a discussion would be
a lot more valuable than the rude non-mathematical silliness coming
from Jute and MikeWhy.
- Frank Krygowski
Andre Jute
> it's
> possible for people who do wear helmets to truly believe that they are
> nearly 100% effective - falling for the propaganda of Thompson &
> Rivara, plus Jute.
That's a lie Krygowski tells. I never said helmets are 100% effective.
Conjoining my name to Thompson & Rivara is another attempted lie, now
exposed, by Krygowski. I've never quoted Thompson and Rivara.
> the rude non-mathematical silliness coming
> from Jute
>
> - Frank Krygowski
That's yet another lie by Frank "Kreepy" Krygowski. As everyone knows
by now, on cycling safety poor old Krygo has to work on my numbers
because his own were so incomptently derived that I took pity on him
and gave him a clean set of number. (Guess why Krygowski won't argue
directly with me but instead snipes from the sidelines, all innuendo
and childish tantrums: poor Franki-boy can't argue with me because his
numbers are actually my numbers!)
Here is the only certified truth in this discussion:
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW
(IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
by Andre Jute
It is a risible myth that your average American is a tall-walking free
individual untrammeled by government: he is in fact just as much
constricted as a European soft-socialist consumerist or Japanese
collective citizen, though it is true that the American is controlled
in different areas of his activity than the European or the Japanese.
To some the uncontrolled areas of American life, for instance the
ability to own and use firearms, smacks of barbarism rather than
liberty. In this article I examine whether the lack of a mandatory
bicycle helmet law in the USA is barbaric or an emanation of that
rugged liberty more evident in rhetoric than reality.
Any case for intervention by the state must be made on moral and
statistical grounds. Examples are driving licences, crush zones on
cars, seatbelts, age restrictions on alcohol sales, and a million
other interventions, all now accepted unremarked in the States as part
of the regulatory landscape, but all virulently opposed in their day.
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through
exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no
effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm
putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and
unexceptional general morality.
In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to
compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists'
average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough.
Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken
By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of
journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in
the US:
Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding
It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
per mile/per trip/per hour danger.
This gives us the overall perspective but says nothing about wearing a
cycling helmet.
HELMET WEAR AT THE EXTREME END OF CYCLING RISK
What we really want to know is: what chance of the helmet saving your
life? The authorities in New York made a compilation covering the
years 1996 to 2003 of all the deaths (225) and serious injuries
(3,462) in cycling accidents in all New York City. The purpose of the
study was an overview usable for city development planning, not helmet
advocacy, so helmet usage was only noted for part of the period among
the seriously injured, amounting to 333 cases. Here are some
conclusions:
• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
• Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal
crashes
Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf
This concatenation of facts suggests very strongly that not wearing a
helmet may be particularly dangerous.
• It looks like wearing a helmet saved roundabout 33 cyclists or so
(of the 333 seriously injured for whom helmet use is known) from
dying.
• If those who died wore helmets at the same rate of 13% as those in
the study who survived, a further 22 or so could have lived.
• If all the fatalities had been wearing a helmet (100%), somewhere
between 10% and 57% of them would have lived. This number is less firm
to allow for impacts so heavy that no helmet would have saved the
cyclist. Still, between 22 and 128 *additional* (to the 33 noted
above) New Yorkers alive rather than dead for wearing a thirty buck
helmet is a serious statistical, moral and political consideration
difficult to overlook.
SO HOW MANY CYCLISTS CAN HELMETS SAVE ACROSS THE NATION?
New York is not the United States but we're not seeking certainly,
only investigating whether a moral imperative for action appears.
First off, the 52,000 cyclists hurt cannot be directly related to the
very serious injuries which were the only ones counted in the New York
compilation. But a fatality is a fatality anywhere and the fraction of
head injuries in the fatalities is pretty constant.
So, with a caution, we can say that of 716 cycling fatalities
nationwide, helmet use could have saved at least 70 and very likely
more towards a possible upper limit of around 400. Again the
statistical extension must be tempered by the knowledge that some
impacts are so heavy that no helmet can save the cyclist. Still, if
even half the impacts resulting in fatal head trauma is too heavy for
a helmet to mitigate, possibly around 235 cyclists might live rather
than die on the roads for simply wearing a helmet. Every year. That's
an instant reduction in cyclist road fatalities of one third. Once
more we have arrived at a statistical, moral and political fact that
is hard to ignore: Helmet wear could save many lives.
THE CASE AGAINST MANDATORY HELMET LAWS
• Compulsion is anti-Constitutional, an assault on the freedom of the
citizen to choose his own manner of living and dying
• Many other actitivities cause fatal head injuries. So why not insist
they should all be put in helmets?
• 37% of bicycle fatalities involve alcohol, and 23% were legally
drunk, and you'll never get these drunks in helmets anyway
• We should leave the drunks to their fate; they're not real cyclists
anyway
• Helmets are not perfect anyway
• Helmets cause cyclists to stop cycling, which is a cost to society
in health losses
• Many more motorists die on the roads than cyclists. Why not insist
that motorists wear helmets inside their cars?
• Helmets don't save lives -- that's a myth put forward by commercial
helmet makers
• Helmets are too heavily promoted
• Helmet makers overstate the benefits of helmets
• A helmet makes me look like a dork
• Too few cyclists will be saved to make the cost worthwhile
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY HELMET LAW IN THE STATES
• 235 or more additional cyclists' lives saved
• 716 deaths of cyclists on the road when a third or more of those
deaths can easily be avoided is a national disgrace
• Education has clearly failed
• Anti-helmet zealots in the face of the evidence from New York are
still advising cyclists not to wear helmets
• An example to the next generation of cyclists
• A visible sign of a commitment to cycling safety, which may attract
more people to cycling
© Copyright Andre Jute 2010. Free for reproduction in non-profit
journals and sites as long as the entire article is reproduced in full
including this copyright and permission notice.
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> Actually, Franki-boy...
Jute, some fourth grader has slipped into your computer room. Or
perhaps your mind. Restrain him, would you?
> the New York study was of 225 cyclist
> fatalities, of which only 3% wore helmets, and another 333 cyclists
> seriously injured, of which 13% wore helmets. That is a total of 558
> cases in whose data it is strongly suggested that wearing a helmet
> gives a cyclist a 433% greater chance of surviving even a serious
> accident.
In essence, you claim that since 74% of cyclist deaths "involved head
injuries" and few cyclists who died wore helmets, the helmets are
proven to save lives.
Yet in Harruff, R. C. et. al., "Analysis of Circumstances and Injuries
in 217 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities," Accid. Analysis & Prevention,
Vol 30, No 1, pp. 11-20, 1998, it's seen that 73% of pedestrian
fatalities also involved head injuries.
Furthermore, in contrast to the New York "study" and the Thompson &
Rivara "85% benefit" paper, the injuries Harruff counted as head
injuries were actually serious. T&R literally counted things such as
ear scratches as "head injuries." The New York study may have done
the same. Harruff, etc. counted only truly serious things as head
injuries: skull fractures, subdural hematomas and contusions and
lacerations of the brain itself (cerebrum, brain stem, mid-brain).
So in for cyclists, 74% involve _some_ injury above the neck. In
pedestrians, 73% involve truly serious head and brain injuries.
Cycling is therefore nothing special regarding head injury. (And BTW,
I have other data showing the typical severity of head injury is
significantly greater in pedestrians than in bicyclists.)
Now let's compare the risk of fatality between peds and cyclists. You
claim this New York paper is a large study because it involves 225
cyclists. But how odd that nobody is looking harder at the
pedestrians! After all, the paper says cyclists are only 6% of New
York's traffic fatalities; pedestrians are 49%! That works out to
over 1800 lives potentially saved, if we could just do something about
all those pedestrians!
Of course, this is similar to national data. In a given year in the
US, there are roughly 750 bicycle fatalities. There are typically
about 4000 pedestrian fatalities. Now, in a country the size of the
US, 750 fatalities is a large number only if you're a confirmed hand-
wringer. That's usually fairly similar to the number killed by the
accidental inhalation of poison gases. (Hear much about that
problem? I thought not.) In Canada, in most years, more people die
by falling out of bed than by crashing bicycles. By any rational
comparison, cycling fatalities are relatively rare.
And as we've mentioned, the risk per mile traveled has been computed.
Turns out walking a mile in the US is over three times as dangerous as
cycling a mile. And again, the main trauma danger for pedestrians is
head injury (as with most modes of accidental death). Why would
anyone portray cycling as unusually dangerous?
Finally, Jute, you've wound on and on about the fact that of the New
York cyclist fatalities whose helmet use was known, only 3% wore
them. But several of us have noted apparent bias in observation. For
example, in the very few cycling fatalities in my metro area, I've
noted that the newspaper reports have included "he was not wearing a
bike helmet" when that was known to be true; but they omitted the
phrase "both mother and daughter were wearing bike helmets when
killed" in the incident for which that was true. Furthermore, Riley
Geary of the Institute for Traffic Safety Analysis has reported
similar discrepancies in official data regarding helmet use in injured
cyclists. His explanation was more detailed, and involved largely
treatment of the "unknown" cases, the design and processing of report
forms, etc. Still, he clearly showed bias occurred in the reporting
an analysis system.
No matter. Since I'm sure you'll discount that, let's go beyond it.
Let's assume that it's true that for the fatally injured cyclists
where helmet use was "known" (and admitted), that 97% wore no helmets.
Fine. The parallel figure for pedestrians is 100%.
Over 1800 pedestrians in the time of the study were killed, compared
ot only 225 cyclists. For both pedestrians and cyclists, roughly 74%
of the fatalities "involved" head injuries. Pedestrian head injuries
tend to be worse than cyclist head injuries. And yet 100% of
pedestrians refuse to wear a helmet - and nobody seems to care!
Personally, I'm never going to call for helmet use by pedestrians -
although others have done that, with total seriousness. I think the
helmet nannies such as yourself are already way too deep into total
nonsense.
I will, however, point out that if you, Jute, are going to continue to
promote bike helmets based on this simplistic New York paper, you need
to promote pedestrian helmets at least as obnoxiously.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> That's yet another lie by Frank "Kreepy" Krygowski.
Jute, some fourth-grader has slipped into your computer room. Or
possibly your mind. Restrain him, would you?
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
> In article
> <72539d44-e8cc-4ade-8e06-31105ac63...@v6g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
So there is some threshold of height, weight, speed, likelihood of
falling over, etc., at which point the protective quality of a bicycle
helmet suddenly becomes zero? I don't think anyone here is saying
that bicycle helmets provide absolute protection for anyone.
> Even preventing abrasions and scalp lacerations is helpful.
>
> > I think they can do a *lot* of good in some potential
> > situations. Possibly even a tremendous lot of good. The kind of
> > good that would have you (or your surviving loved ones) very grateful
> > for it. But there are still people who will always dismiss this
> > because you can't prove what didn't happen. Fine.
>
> > The probability of a typical bicyclist benefiting from a helmet's
> > protective capacity is not high, but that probability is virtually
> > impossible to predict for *every* individual bicyclist.
>
> As Frank has pointed out, a bicycle crash is a chaotic event and it is
> impossible to predict whether a cyclist will strike his head at all and,
> if he does, how hard that impact is going to be. So it is impossible to
> predict whether the rider would have a brain injury with or without a
> helmet.
>
But they might, mightn't they?
> The likelihood is that the typical bicyclist is not going to crash and
> test their helmet at all. This is not a bad thing, of course- in fact
> it's a great thing. The best way to prevent brain injuries while
> cycling is to just say no to hitting your head on something. Develop
> good skills and stay aware of what's around you. It's not 100%
> foolproof but the odds are strongly in your favor.
>
Gosh, why didn't I think of that. Gee, thanks - now that I know, I'll
try it!
> > There is a downside / cost to wearing a helmet, but I think that's
> > very probably at least as overinflated by some people as they
> > themselves complain so vociferously that the upside is by others.
> > But the worth of the protection is not just weighed against the
> > likelihood of it being needed. It is also weighed against the
> > potential cost of not having it if and when it is needed.
>
> This does not answer the fundamental issue of why widespread helmet use
> does not decrease the numbers of brain injuries associated with cycling.
>
I don't want to dedicate my life to studying a lot of exceedingly
incomplete research, so I just can't know what you're basing this
conclusion on. I do know that the most vehement arguers here touting
such "facts" seem to have a significant bias.
> > This is all pretty much incredibly incalculable for any individual.
> > As far as I know, only one individual here is arguing for compulsory
> > helmet use (which certainly has a much greater downside than any
> > individual[s] choosing to use a helmet), and that is just an obvious
> > troll anyway.
>
> Nobody in the newsgroup has recently put forth an argument for MHLs. I
> recall doing so about 15 years ago, back when I was a pro-helmet zealot.
>
> > So just knock it off!
>
> If you want to wear a helmet I am certainly not going to stop you.
> Heck, I wear a helmet sometimes (usually to keep the wife happy)...
That is one of the biggest reasons I wear mine, too (when I do, that
is).
> , I just
> don't expect it to provide any protection.
Are you serious? No protection at all?
> I also sometimes wear one as
> a sun hat for long rides on warm days because it's more comfortable than
> my cycling caps, having ventilation as helmets do. Keeps the top of my
> head from sunburn.
>
Well, okay - whatever.
> I don't rely on a helmet to save my life, prevent a brain injury, etc,
Nor do I.
> because I know it is not likely to do that.
But it might, mightn't it?
> I rely on my cycling skills
> and my awareness of what's around me while I am riding.
>
As do I; rely *more* on my skill and my awareness, that is... also my
intelligence, i.e. my ability to predict probable developments in
consideration for understood possibilities).
> > You guys who think bicycle helmets are a bad idea go ahead and argue
> > against their compulsory use. If you feel so strongly that they're
> > bad even for individual use by choice, go ahead and try to work to
> > make people better off however you feel you have to, but don't go on
> > endlessly about it here with your only decent argument really being
> > against compulsory use policies.
>
> No, the key argument is that there is no good evidence that they do what
> is claimed in the advertising and editorial opinion.
>
What advertising? What editorial opinion? Who is defending those?
> > You guys who think bicycle helmets *are* a good idea quit nagging the
> > other guys to wear one... um... except... I don't think you are doing
> > that here, so...
>
> Not that I've noticed. Well, not directly anyway. There's an
> implication, of course.
>
A lot more implication that wearing a helmet is for suckers and/or
poor "cyclists".
> > You guys go somewhere else to give hell to "helmet promoters" who
> > don't really know what they're talking about.
>
> Ah, "you don't agree with me so go away" being the point. Sounds like
> most of the drivel we hear from right wing politicians these days.
>
Read my followup qualification. I welcome thoughtful discussion and
am open to learning and developing a more sophisticated understanding,
but this keeps coming around to haranguing people as simply ignorant,
frightened pro-helmet propagandists and such. That gets tiresome.
Dan O
<snip>
> I welcome thoughtful discussion and
> am open to learning and developing a more sophisticated understanding,
> but this keeps coming around to haranguing people as simply ignorant,
> frightened pro-helmet propagandists and such. That gets tiresome.
Let me qualify that, too: The judgmental haranguing is not cool from
any side of the issue.
Edward Dolan
"Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:62df2f85-5ffc-4933...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
- Frank Krygowski
Admit it Frank, you do not wear a helmet because it messes up your hair. In
my discussions with cyclists I have found that to be the number one reason
why they do not wear helmets.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
Jay Beattie
> "Frank Krygowski" <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:62df2f85-5ffc-4933...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 27, 2:45 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > That's yet another lie by Frank "Kreepy" Krygowski.
>
> Jute, some fourth-grader has slipped into your computer room. Or
> possibly your mind. Restrain him, would you?
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
> Admit it Frank, you do not wear a helmet because it messes up your hair. In
> my discussions with cyclists I have found that to be the number one reason
> why they do not wear helmets.
Whereas a too small vintage Euro team racing cap does not mess up the
hair. http://www.faston2wheels.com/f2/2009/12/17/ha-explanatory-diagram-of-a-hipster-biker-fixtr/
-- Jay Beattie.
Tom Sherman °_°
>[...]
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
andre...@aol.com
You mean existing?