Consumer Reports trolls the 88% helmet line...

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 05 May 2006 08:40:37 +0100 someone who may be Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>"88%" actually /means/ the figure is taken from a thoroughly discredited
>research paper with comedy methodology and accordingly it means that
>whoever quoted it doesn't know what they're on about, didn't check their
>sources or is being dishonest.

The authors also accepted some of the criticisms of their
methodology and produced lower figures. These are still too high,
but they do show that any organisation quoting the 88% figure is a
fool or a liar.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 05 May 2006 08:59:45 +0100, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 05 May 2006 08:40:37 +0100 someone who may be Peter Clinch
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>"88%" actually /means/ the figure is taken from a thoroughly discredited
>>research paper with comedy methodology and accordingly it means that
>>whoever quoted it doesn't know what they're on about, didn't check their
>>sources or is being dishonest.
>
>The authors also accepted some of the criticisms of their
>methodology and produced lower figures. These are still too high,
>but they do show that any organisation quoting the 88% figure is a
>fool or a liar.

Dear David,

I like to think that I was just uninformed or perhaps
misinformed, not foolish or lying, so I tend to suspect
others might be in the same boat.

In any case, calling them liars and fools is not exactly the
most effective method of convincing them of the strength of
your argument.

(I know this, but like you, I occasionally re-test the
excoriation method to vent my spleen and check that it still
doesn't work too well.)

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[sothach]

[email protected] wrote:
> To bring in a bit of bicycle content:
>
> Way, way back when I first got into bicycling, in the 1970s, CR did a
> comparative test of ten speed bikes. (That's ten, count 'em, ten
> speeds _total_.)

Ten gears? You sure? That's crazy - who could need more than one?

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to sothach:
> > Way, way back when I first got into bicycling, in the 1970s, CR did a
> > comparative test of ten speed bikes. (That's ten, count 'em, ten
> > speeds _total_.)
>
> Ten gears? You sure? That's crazy - who could need more than one?
>

"Nobody will ever need more than a Sturmey-Archer 3-speed!" - Bill
Gates, c.1965

--
Mark, UK
"The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one
of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions."

 

[Chalo]

Zog The Undeniable wrote:
>
> I bought one in the early 1990s because I thought it seemed like a good
> idea. Then I realised how little protection it would offer and how much
> extra it made me sweat in summer, so I'm voraciously anti-compulsion now.

That is essentially my story as well. I had a Bell V-1 Pro which I got
in 1987. Then in about 1989 I bought a slick-looking Specialized
helmet with more aerodynamic lines and better venting. By the time
that one was looking disreputable, I had crashed my bike enough with
and without a helmet to understand that what little protection it
offered didn't offset the effects of helmet-induced overheating or the
distracting, camouflaging noise of wind across the straps. I have
never sincen then wanted another bicycle helmet, though on rare
occasions I have worn a motorcycle helmet while riding a bicycle.

Chalo Colina

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Sorni" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Just like the anti-helmet zealots always say "well you'd have to re-enact
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There are no such persons.

> the accident without the helmet", in your case you'd have to re-do it WITH a
> helmet to test your hypothesis/conclusion. (Why would a helmet "deflect the
> blow to your jaw bone"? Since you got a black eye, sounds like you hit more
> of the /front/ of your head than the cranium.)

--
Michael Press

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 05 May 2006 02:13:51 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

>On Fri, 05 May 2006 08:59:45 +0100, David Hansen
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 05 May 2006 08:40:37 +0100 someone who may be Peter Clinch
>><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>>
>>>"88%" actually /means/ the figure is taken from a thoroughly discredited
>>>research paper with comedy methodology and accordingly it means that
>>>whoever quoted it doesn't know what they're on about, didn't check their
>>>sources or is being dishonest.
>>
>>The authors also accepted some of the criticisms of their
>>methodology and produced lower figures. These are still too high,
>>but they do show that any organisation quoting the 88% figure is a
>>fool or a liar.
>
>Dear David,
>
>I like to think that I was just uninformed or perhaps
>misinformed, not foolish or lying,

A professional organization, with research staff and a large
public-outreach effort that reache tens or hundreds of thousands of
people has responsiblity to look into things more closely. Otherwise
they are foolishly misinformed, reckless or worse.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[jtaylor]

"catzz66" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > It's possible that the helmet does offer some significant
> > protection, but that wearing it irresistably provokes the
> > wearer to ride more recklessly.
>
> It is this kind of logic that makes me disregard anything else the non
> helmet people say. The bottom line is that I don't really care what you
> do. It is your noggin.

The bottom line is that the industry & and people who failed maths force
helmets on ALL users, which results in additional health costs. If it _is_
my noggin, why are there laws which require me to put a silly foam hat on
it?

 

[jtaylor]

"Werehatrack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 4 May 2006 11:45:25 -0300, "jtaylor"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >(Helmets) "...can prevent up to 88% of bike-related brain injuries,
> >according to one industry estimate."
> >
> >June 2006, p30
>
> Weasel-words: "up to".
>
>

....and "can prevent", and "according to", and "one (industry) estimate".

 

[Paul Cassel]

[email protected] wrote:

>
> Dear David,
>
> I like to think that I was just uninformed or perhaps
> misinformed, not foolish or lying, so I tend to suspect
> others might be in the same boat.
>
> In any case, calling them liars and fools is not exactly the
> most effective method of convincing them of the strength of
> your argument.
>
> (I know this, but like you, I occasionally re-test the
> excoriation method to vent my spleen and check that it still
> doesn't work too well.)
>
I'm new to bicycles, but the method used for evaluating motorcycle
helmets is foolish. The test is an anvil accelerated to a certain m/s
velocity. The problem is that exceedingly few motorcycle crashes involve
danger of penetration from anvil-like objects. The only way such tests
would reflect real world crashes would be in the event of a rider
sliding into a curb or doing a layout onto rocks.

Yet this method still persists. Also there are no tests to determine if
the helmet blocks sight or sound as some bikers say they do. Thus you
can conclude that at least in the motorcycle world, fools and liars
publish the helmet 'safety' data even if the lying isn't intentional.

We of the safety skeptical set have grown so used to faked statistics
and stupidly constructed 'studies' that perhaps we react a bit strongly
to the patently idiotic maunderings of pubs like CR. Those of you who
support any such studies will soon rue the day. Today it's helmets for
all bicyclists but tomorrow it'll be mandatory elbow, knee, shoulder and
hip pads.

At that point, all the fun will be gone from it, but we'll be safe and
few will know what we've lost.

-paul

 

[RonSonic]

On Thu, 04 May 2006 18:51:15 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

>On Thu, 04 May 2006 18:08:42 -0500, catzz66
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>> ... large snip
>>
>>Carl, in your way of thinking, it is appropriate for opponents to
>>presuppose more reckless behavior on the part of helmet wearers but it
>>is not appropriate to accept the anecdotal evidence of wearers who
>>believe it has helped them avoid more serious injury. That is just one
>>example. Until there is some common ground, there will always exist
>>extreme opinions that can never meet in the middle. I respect a lot of
>>your other opinions on cycling matters, but on this one that I don't.
>>Obviously, neither of us cares about the others' opinion and I'm okay
>>with that. I might read some more of this thread, but am not going to
>>reply anymore. I'll leave it at that.
>
>Dear C.,
>
>I think you're mistaken about presupposition:
>
>http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html#7.1
>
>That's a theory being tested extensively under controlled
>settings.
>
>Again, do you have a different theory to account for the
>well-documented lack of effect in several nations when
>helmet use skyrockets?
>
>I can think of only two theories.
>
>One, helmets don't actually offer significant protection
>against serious injury.

I'm taking option one, with amendment and extended remarks. Modern ER care being
what it is (those parts of the world without modern ERs also lack helmets) the
threshold of fatal injury has moved well past anything a cycling helmet can be
reasonably expected to prevent. The horrific mangling now necessary to kill a
resident of the modern world would probably be lethal regardless of protective
headgear. Even in the case where a head injury is ruled the cause of death, we
can't know that the victim wouldn't have died somewhat more slowly from the
other injuries caused when the municipal bus went over him.

I can say with certainty, from personal experience that helmets are very
effective at reducing or eliminating more minor injuries ranging from scratches
and scrapes to the "bell rung" level of minor concussion.

Most of my riding is off road and the mountain biking experience includes minor
injury and some appropriate level of prevention. I don't expect my helmet to do
much more for my head than the packing tape I occasionally wear does for my
shins. Just prevents some predictable and annoying but very nonfatal injury.

>Two, helmets do offer at least some protection, but
>unfortunately we never see that effect because we
>automatically increase our risk to the familiar level
>whenever we get anti-lock brakes, helmets, safety glass,
>seat belts, air-bags, better tires, stronger bumpers, and so
>on.

I do that a bit the other way around. I'll wear a helmet based on the risk of
the upcoming ride.

>That's why I've become a helmet skeptic.

Skepticism is good.

Ron

>Happy trails,
>
>Carl Fogel

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, catzz66 wrote:
>
>It is this kind of logic that makes me disregard anything else the non
>helmet people say.

Yes, much better to ignore logic and get a warm fuzzy from believing
your own intuition, no matter what the facts are.

 

[RonSonic]

On Fri, 05 May 2006 07:12:15 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Barnard Frederick wrote:
>> Sorni says...
>>
>>> If you bounce your noggin off the pavement, do you hope you're
>>> helmeted or not?
>>>
>>> Succinct Sorni
>>
>> I bounced mine off the pavement in 2004. I was going at full speed
>> and rounded the corner into my apartment complex where they were
>> watering the street instead of the grass. Skidded out like I was on
>> ice and went face first into the pavement. Hard. Very hard. Since
>> I wasn't wearing a helmet I got a black eye and some other minor
>> swelling. If I had been wearing one, the blow would have been
>> deflected to my jaw bone and almost certainly causing a more serious
>> injury. The most painful injuries were to my hands which had
>> numerous cuts and road rash. Every appendage had some minor damage
>> with more serious damage to my right leg, hip and arm as well as the
>> right side of my face. Limped for several days. Went to the
>> emergency room for the first time since I was
>> 12.
>>
>> Others can disagree if they like, but its as good an anecdote as the
>> 'glad I was wearing a helmet' stories we keep hearing. If I had been
>> wearing a full face motorcycle helmet, that would have been a
>> different story. But bicycle helmets are half-assed and only offer
>> limited protection under certain circumstances. I also have to
>> wonder if there is a net safety gain considering they are hot and can
>> be distracting. For example, one can be fiddling with a strap that
>> isn't comfortable instead of controlling the bike.
>
>Just like the anti-helmet zealots always say "well you'd have to re-enact
>the accident without the helmet", in your case you'd have to re-do it WITH a
>helmet to test your hypothesis/conclusion. (Why would a helmet "deflect the
>blow to your jaw bone"? Since you got a black eye, sounds like you hit more
>of the /front/ of your head than the cranium.)
>
>Hope you were wearing gloves! <eg>

Helmets are optional. Gloves essential.

Ron

 

[Paul Hobson]

>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>It's possible that the helmet does offer some significant
>>>protection, but that wearing it irresistably provokes the
>>>wearer to ride more recklessly.

> "catzz66" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>It is this kind of logic that makes me disregard anything else the non
>>helmet people say. The bottom line is that I don't really care what you
>>do. It is your noggin.

jtaylor wrote:
> The bottom line is that the industry & and people who failed maths force
> helmets on ALL users, which results in additional health costs. If it _is_
> my noggin, why are there laws which require me to put a silly foam hat on
> it?

Same reason there are laws that say it's illegal to smoke marijuana,
then sit at home all night and watch infomercials while eating an enitre
bag of cheetos. Don't think about it too hard though. You'll really
start to get mad.
--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

 

[bookieb]

David Hansen wrote:

> On Fri, 05 May 2006 08:40:37 +0100 someone who may be Peter Clinch
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
<snip>
> The authors also accepted some of the criticisms of their
> methodology and produced lower figures. These are still too high,
> but they do show that any organisation quoting the 88% figure is a
> fool or a liar.
>
>
> --
> David Hansen, Edinburgh
> I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

....or simply too lazy to check that a convenient soundbite statistic,
one which they found in advertising bumpf, or read on the web somwhere
(bhit anyone?), and which "supports" the point they are trying to make,
has some basis in fact or reputable research.

A "journalist" failing to check facts thoroughly? Good Lord, next
you'll be telling me that some politicians are not totally and solely
dedicated to improving the lives of the people they represent.

bookieb.

 

[Jay Beattie]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 04 May 2006 18:08:42 -0500, catzz66
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> ... large snip
> >
> >Carl, in your way of thinking, it is appropriate for opponents to
> >presuppose more reckless behavior on the part of helmet wearers but it
> >is not appropriate to accept the anecdotal evidence of wearers who
> >believe it has helped them avoid more serious injury. That is just one
> >example. Until there is some common ground, there will always exist
> >extreme opinions that can never meet in the middle. I respect a lot of
> >your other opinions on cycling matters, but on this one that I don't.
> >Obviously, neither of us cares about the others' opinion and I'm okay
> >with that. I might read some more of this thread, but am not going to
> >reply anymore. I'll leave it at that.
>
> Dear C.,
>
> I think you're mistaken about presupposition:
>
> http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html#7.1
>
> That's a theory being tested extensively under controlled
> settings.
>
> Again, do you have a different theory to account for the
> well-documented lack of effect in several nations when
> helmet use skyrockets?
>
> I can think of only two theories.
>
> One, helmets don't actually offer significant protection
> against serious injury.

Yes they do, and there is plenty of proof of this in reported studies
in peer reviewed literature. Whether they prevent death is another
issue.

> Two, helmets do offer at least some protection, but
> unfortunately we never see that effect because we
> automatically increase our risk to the familiar level
> whenever we get anti-lock brakes, helmets, safety glass,
> seat belts, air-bags, better tires, stronger bumpers, and so
> on.

That's wrong, too. The NHTSA numbers show that seatbelts reduce a
variety of injuries and ejection.

You assume that injuries result from the victim's risk taking as
opposed to risk taking by others, vis., the one-car versus multi-car
accident. For the person who hits a corner too fast and careens off
the road, you may have a point -- for the person who is t-boned while
driving 5mph through a green light, you don't. All of the prudence in
the world will not save a person from that type of accident.

The whole risk compensation argument also assumes that a person's
acceptable risk level before wearing a helmet would not expose him/her
to head injury. The data would have to show that the incremental
change in risk taking behavior was the cause of the head injury, rather
than the "base line" risk -- which I think would be impossible to prove
unless the subjects were involved in an activity that they would not
have done at all without a helmet, e.g. racing.-- Jay Beattie.

 

[David Hansen]

On 5 May 2006 09:03:07 -0700 someone who may be "bookieb"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> The authors also accepted some of the criticisms of their
>> methodology and produced lower figures. These are still too high,
>> but they do show that any organisation quoting the 88% figure is a
>> fool or a liar.
>
>...or simply too lazy to check that a convenient soundbite statistic,
>one which they found in advertising bumpf, or read on the web somwhere
>(bhit anyone?), and which "supports" the point they are trying to make,
>has some basis in fact or reputable research.

I think that comes under my first heading.

The liars are those who know the figure is bogus, but still push it
for various "reasons". One of these "reasons" is that, "the figure
is widely known and to contradict it would confuse people." These
liars are frequently funded by my taxes.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting catzz66 <[email protected]>:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> ... large snip
>Carl, in your way of thinking, it is appropriate for opponents to
>presuppose more reckless behavior on the part of helmet wearers but it
>is not appropriate to accept the anecdotal evidence of wearers who
>believe it has helped them avoid more serious injury.

That's because risk compensation is a proven real behaviour and those
anecdotes are provably bogus. Only one in every few thousand cyclists can
expect to die in the saddle - fewer still from preventable head injuries
not accompanied by other mortal wounds. Maybe one in ten or one in twenty
helmet wearers will tell you how it saved their life. How can that
possibly be accurate? Why aren't one in twenty helmetless riders killed?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is First Thursday, May.

 

[Sorni]

RonSonic wrote:
{Hugh Jass Memorial Snip}

> Most of my riding is off road and the mountain biking experience
> includes minor injury and some appropriate level of prevention. I
> don't expect my helmet to do much more for my head than the packing
> tape I occasionally wear does for my shins. Just prevents some
> predictable and annoying but very nonfatal injury.

You wrap your shins in packing tape?!?

Bill "poor man's (?) leg wax?" S.

 

[Sorni]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Sorni" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Just like the anti-helmet zealots always say "well you'd have to
>> re-enact
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> There are no such persons.

Au contraire.