cycling links

[JohnB]

Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >
> > ..and that still doesn't work given the number of head injuries
> > occupants suffer.

> I'm assuming you have seen some statistic I haven't?

Head injury as cause of death for:
Motor vehicle occupants is 40%;
Cyclists is 25%;
Pedestrians is 65%.
ref:"Death on the Streets" by Robert Davis chapter 11.

So why not helmets for car occupants before cyclists?

John B

 

[Tony Raven]

Roberta Hatch wrote:
>
> In short, you don't like it, so it must not be legit. <yawn>
>

The deficiencies of that paper have been well aired and even the authors
have revised their figures on it. If you want to cling uncritically to
dodgy science that's your perogative but I do suggest you go and do the
non-head injury calculations yourself from the paper and then come back
and explain to us how a legit study could possibly lead to the
conclusion that helmets prevent leg injuries.


>
> Nice try, but no cigar. The paper *disputes* a finding of
> another paper. And, that paper in no way nullifies what I wrote.

You wrote "A helmet will help prevent serious injury to the head
whenever it comes between a head and an object that it shouldn't. If
you want to dispute that, please do provide a scientific study to back
up your claims"

The paper says "The conclusions are that the meta-analysis does not
provide scientific evidence that such helmets reduce serious injury to
the brain" If they are not reducing it they are not preventing it.
Ergo it does back up the claims and is evidence against your position
(nullifies is too strong a word).
>



>
>>> Your graphs do not prove anything about helmet safety. I sugesst
>>>you read and learn from those research papers I gave you earlier.
>
>
>
>>You mean you cannot see a single discernable effect on head injury rates
>>as a result of doubling helmet wearing rates?
>
>
> I ment exactly what I wrote.
>

Well if you want to ignore the evidence staring you in the face in
favour of your common sense prejudices that's your perogative. But tell
me if helmets have such a good protective effect why is there no visible
change in the head injury rates when the wearing rate doubled. Surely
you must have an explanation as to why this simple observation does not
prove anything about helmet safety.


>
> Laugh. I suggest you not try to find fault with a single
> paper, then ignore everything else put in front of your face. That's
> exactly what you're doing in an attempt to 'prove' your claims.
>

A single paper? Ignoring everything else? I wish! Most of the papers
in the field have been subject to study and critique. The fact that you
are coming new to the topic and discovering the first (and most flawed)
paper on most people's list doesn't mean the others have been ignored.
We've been there long before you turned up waiving TRT.

Tony

 

[Mark Thompson]

> Nice try, but no cigar. The paper *disputes* a finding of
> another paper. And, that paper in no way nullifies what I wrote.

**You said**
"Wrong. A helmet will help prevent serious injury to the head
whenever it comes between a head and an object that it shouldn't. It
you want to dispute than, please do provide a scientific study to back
up your claim."

**The paper said** (in the effing abstract):
"It is shown that the design of helmets reflects a discredited theory
of brain injury"


In the actual main text it explains exactly why it is thought that
helmets do not protect _at all_ against what it terms 'rotational'
impacts. It also states that it is these impacts that cause the most
serious brain damage and are most likely to lead to death.

It also speculates that helmets may increase the likelihood of these
impacts occuring.


A bit of googling will throw up a type of (motorcycle) helmet designed to
protect against this type of impact.

Mark.


<sits back, lights cigar. Chokes>

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:08:29 GMT, Chris Phillipo
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>I'm assuming you have seen some statistic I haven't? There's a reason
>firemen say "We never have to unbuckle a dead man."

Have you ever heard of risk compensation?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 04:45:07 GMT, slim <pickin'[email protected]> wrote in
message <[email protected]>:

>> You say. But helmets are not designed to protect against motor
>> vehicle impacts. Don't stop wearing it, but remember that if you are
>> hit by a car you can depend on it to this extent: not at all.

>You can say that with absolute metaphysical certainty?

Note word "depend". Placing your trust in something which is not
designed for the job, and whose manufacturers don't claim it will do
it, seems to me to be very ill-advised. And, the evidence suggests,
the more people depend on them, the more they find this out.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:56:04 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Roberta
Hatch) wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>In short, you don't like it, so it must not be legit. <yawn>

Roberta, please, go and read this study. Some of the studies are open
to debate, but that one genuinely is ****.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2006.pdf

Read it, and compare it with this: "A prospective analysis of injury
severity among helmeted and non helmeted bicyclists involved in
collisions with motor vehicles" Spaite DW, Murphy M, Criss EA,
Valenzuela TD, Meislin HW.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:03:44 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>The fact that the helmeted group
>had significantly fewer leg injuries should immediately have set alarm
>bells ringing with the authors that the two groups were not comparable
>and that any other deductions were therefor suspect. Unfortunately they
>did not do that simple check but its easy enough to do it for yourself.

They also failed to notice that the helmet wearing rate in their
control group was a factor of ten higher than co-author Rivara's
contemporaneous street counts. Substituting the lower figure reduces
the calculated benefit to zero, within the limits of statistical
accuracy.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:34:57 +0900, James Annan
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>> A child does not fall with a horizontal speed 22 mph.

>Certainly not if she is standing still, as in the above anecdote. Did
>you have a point?

I think the point was that "slim" doesn't realise that potential
energy varies with speed squared.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Eric®]

David Hansen wrote:

> Logically you must want people to wear helmets when using the
> stairs, which is a far more dangerous activity than cycling

I don't understand why being overweight hasn't been banned yet - with
these folks so concerned about our health & safety.

Eric Schild

 

[Mark McN]

Response to Tony Raven:
> Does that mean if driving you would instinctively take more care near an
> unhelmeted cyclist than a helmeted one? It certainly seems to be my
> observation of drivers since I stopped wearing a helmet.
>

<AOL> Me too. </AOL> I've wondered in the past if that contributes to
some degree to the disparity between the predicted benefits of helmets
and their dismal real-world performance.


Consider this: almost invariably, the first thing people say when they
ask about the trike is "Isn't it terribly dangerous?" But when I'm on
it, it seems to me that I get *far* more consideration (particularly
when it comes to overtaking) than when I'm on the upright.



--
Mark, UK.
We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him squeak,
We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

 

[Eric®]

Roberta Hatch wrote:

> >Its a valid question. Per mile and per hour you are more likely to
> >suffer a head injury as a pedestrian than as a cyclist. Yet you don't
> >seem to be calling for helmets to be worn by pedestrians even though
> >they are at greater risk than cyclists. Why not?
>
> No it is not a vaild question. It's no more valid than trying
> to say that people fall off chairs when eating dinner and why shouldn't
> they wear seat belts.

Deciding that the questions of other people are 'invalid' is definitely
the mark of a free-thinking liberal kind of person.

Eric Schild

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 29 Nov 2004 04:11:16 -0800, [email protected] (Joe Keenan)
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>> >Yikes. Put razors on your cycling shoes and jump all over me.
>> I'd slip - those Look cleats are a bugger ;-)
>Yup they are. Now you're gonna tell me I shouldn't wear those funny
>rubber covers to keep me from slipping!! <g> Sorry Guy, couldn't
>resist that one. I know you're gonna counter with: Walk gingerly and
>more carefully. Okay, that works!!

A year ago, I'd have said that. Today I am buying the rubber covers -
walking round stations in Looks is too dangerous. I might even have
to start wearing a h*lm*t

>> In the UK the major helmet promoters put out a figure of 50 child head
>> injury deaths due to cycling every year. The real figure is ten, out
>> of 22 fatalities in total. They said this was an "estimate based on
>> under-reporting". I leave it to you to calculate the likelihood of
>> 80% of fatal child cyclist head injuries going unreported! The
>> official figure for unreported cyclist fatalities is: 0%.

>Actually, I have read all of those and more. If I remember right the
>85% comes from a study that was done in the 80's.

1989. No other study has given a figure that high, to my knowledge,
so it's the one they all quote. It's taken apart here:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2006.pdf

>Having read the studies, that's the reason I'm not
>saying anything to try and change anyone's opinion. I really don't
>know which is "more better".

Yes, I know how you feel. The more I read the more I realise we don't
know. I think the zealots like the cosy simplicity of their blinkered
viewpoint, but I can't buy into it.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Eric®]

Robert Broughton wrote:

> > What has your obsession with "Losertarians" as you call them got to do
> > with cycling?

> As much as Losertarian philosophy has to do with cycling.

IOW - nothing. You have yet to deliniate what your "Losertarian
philosopy" actually is.

Eric Schild

 

[JFJones]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> >
> > Some cheap and effective protection for everyone would be to make it
> > clear no one has the constitutional right to use public roads, it is a
> > privilege that can be taken away at any time for not following the
> > rules.
>
> That may be so where you live, but where I live (and this is massively
> cross posted internationally) we do have a right to use the public roads
> on a bicycle, horse or foot although it is not a constitutional right as
> we do not have a constitution (yet!)
>
> Tony

Phillipo hasn't got a clue about the country he lives in. We have a
written constitution and certain rights are enumerated. That doesn't
mean we have no other rights. Canada inherited much of english common
law through the British North American Act. Every Canadian has a right
to use public highways (that's why they are called public) in the same
way each has the right to breathe the air outside. Phillipo confuses
right of travel on public highways with driving a motorized vehicle on
public highways (the latter clearly being a privilege). It's not
surprising, Phillipo is frequently confused.

Rights are taken, not given.

JFJ

 

[Robert Broughton]

Eric® wrote:

> Robert Broughton wrote:
>
>> > What has your obsession with "Losertarians" as you call them got to do
>> > with cycling?
>
>> As much as Losertarian philosophy has to do with cycling.
>
> IOW - nothing. You have yet to deliniate what your "Losertarian
> philosopy" actually is.
>

Don't be silly. Losertarianism is your philosophy, not mine.

--
Bob Broughton
http://broughton.ca/
Vancouver, BC, Canada
"Not all carcinogens are known to cause cancer in humans."
- Todd Benson, mailto:[email protected] , Oct. 24, 2004

 

[Eric®]

Tony Raven wrote:

> Have you not read the Curnow reference I gave you, complete with on-line
> link, yet?

There is a weird anti-cycling cartel out there. You could post links
til you're blue in the face and Hatch & Broughton will still attack you
for being a cyclist.

Eric Schild

 

[Robert Broughton]

Eric® wrote:

> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> Have you not read the Curnow reference I gave you, complete with on-line
>> link, yet?
>
> There is a weird anti-cycling cartel out there. You could post links
> til you're blue in the face and Hatch & Broughton will still attack you
> for being a cyclist.
>
> Eric Schild

I invite anyone who read this to take a look at two web sites I maintain,
http://vbc.bc.ca/ and http://broughton.ca/bcakfaq.html . Then you can
decide for yourself if I am part of an "anti-cycling cartel", weird or
otherwise.

As I pointed out a couple of days ago, "because Losertarians have such a
weak cause, the only way they can support it is to tell lies and make
things up." Eric Schild was informed previously in bc.cycling (you can look
it up) of these two web sites, as well as the fact that I'm a former
president of the Vancouver Bicycle Club, and one of the early organizers of
the Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition. Eric Schild is a serial liar, and
should be getting psychiatic help.

--
Bob Broughton
http://broughton.ca/
Vancouver, BC, Canada
"Not all carcinogens are known to cause cancer in humans."
- Todd Benson, mailto:[email protected] , Oct. 24, 2004

 

[Tom Sherman]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> ...
> 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

If Guy Chapman is referring to the studies done at the The Harborview
Injury Prevention and Research Center [1], he should be aware that this
is part of the UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON [2] located in Seattle,
Washington, USA. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY [3] is located in the St. Louis,
Missouri metropolitan area and is a wholly unrelated institution.

Geographically, it is about a 3500 km bicycle ride between the two
universities.

[1]
<http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/helmeteffect.html>
[2] <http://www.washington.edu/>
[3] <http://www.wustl.edu/>

--
Tom Sherman - Rock Island County Illinois

 

[Tony Raven]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> They also failed to notice that the helmet wearing rate in their
> control group was a factor of ten higher than co-author Rivara's
> contemporaneous street counts. Substituting the lower figure reduces
> the calculated benefit to zero, within the limits of statistical
> accuracy.
>

Interesting. Is that zero after accounting for the 10x helmet wearing
factor only or all the other factors. If its the latter then presumably
helmets had no measurable effect, but if its the former then adding in
the other correcting factors would give a negative overall effect.

Tony

 

[Tony Raven]

Eric® wrote:
>
> I don't understand why being overweight hasn't been banned yet - with
> these folks so concerned about our health & safety.
>

Don't worry the British Government is getting there. BMI Police anyone?

Tony