Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:41:49 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm
<[email protected]> said in <[email protected]>:

>in my case it's clear that gardening is well over 100 times more
>injurious per hour than cycling.

Massively more so in my case: I have needed surgery under general
anaesthetic to fix one gardening injury, no cycling crash has ever
been that bad!

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Tony Raven]

gds wrote:
> The same way I explain the problem with all the other studies. The
> study looked at reported injury rates rather than what was going on in
> the poulation--again ignoring non accidents and non reported accident
> which might (or might not) be impacted by helmet use.
>

Given two explanations, one that helmets make no difference or the other
that in at least two countries, the step change doubling of helmet
wearing coincided with a change in what people thought needed to be
treated in hospital that in each country was exactly just enough to
cancel out any protective effect of helmets in the reported figures,
where do you think the balance of probabilities lies?

> So, how do you calculate a rate without knowing the numerator (Total
> cycling injuries reported and non reported) or the denominator (the
> corresponding population of cyclists)?

You don't need to calculate a rate. Even on numbers it comes out pretty
clearly. But neither you or Scharf the Larf want to know that otherwise
you would have answered my challenge and identified the year on the
graphs when the MHL was introduced. I wonder why?

>
> My point in the reference was in the halving of the reported accidents
> for helmet users. While not statistically signifigant it does point to
> what I think is a reason to look further at what is happening overall.
>

You are not interested in looking further at all. If we looked further
and did all the studies you wanted you would still find a way to
rationalise your way out of accepting the unavoidable.

> I'll go back to my earlier response. If the reality is that there is no
> problem, i.e. the risk of injury is so miniscule that it is not worth
> any worry whatso ever. And even if one did worry helmets had no impact
> on injury severity anyway. Then why are so many experienced cycling
> advocats, folks with no financial interest to either insurance or
> helmet industries instituting and supporting helmet use? It seems that
> large numbers of experienced cyclists are rejecting the research you
> proffer. Why?

I don't know who these people are but in Europe its a small minority
that wear helmets - 1 in 1000 in Holland. And in the UK the cycling
bodies do not promote helmets - that is left to the non-cyclist shroud
wavers who want to impose their views on cyclists. I know very few
cycling advocates who promote cycle helmets. Our local lobby group for
mandatory helmets use Formula One driver David Coulthard to promote
their cause but even he doesn't wear a helmet on his bicycle a lot of
the time.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[gds]

Tony Raven wrote:

>
> I don't know who these people are but in Europe its a small minority
> that wear helmets - 1 in 1000 in Holland. And in the UK the cycling
> bodies do not promote helmets - that is left to the non-cyclist shroud
> wavers who want to impose their views on cyclists. I know very few
> cycling advocates who promote cycle helmets. > --

But in the US that is not the case. So, again we have different
situations and thus difficulty in comparing. Making it still harder to
understand what is really happening overall.

And of course your continued use of perjoratives in describing anyone
who disagerees with you is as always a high point of your argument.

 

[Tony Raven]

gds wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> I don't know who these people are but in Europe its a small minority
>> that wear helmets - 1 in 1000 in Holland. And in the UK the cycling
>> bodies do not promote helmets - that is left to the non-cyclist shroud
>> wavers who want to impose their views on cyclists. I know very few
>> cycling advocates who promote cycle helmets. > --
>
> But in the US that is not the case. So, again we have different
> situations and thus difficulty in comparing. Making it still harder to
> understand what is really happening overall.
>

I bet if we produced US figures you would say but they don't look at my
town. And if we looked at your town you would claim they don't look at
the streets in your town. And if we looked at the streets in your town
you would say that it wasn't the streets you ride....so on ad infinitum.

But the study for San Diego showed no measurable effect of increasing
adult helmet use from 7.5% to 30% in one year and of child helmet use
from 0% to 40%. Perhaps they too changed their injury reporting habits
overnight to compensate exactly for your decrease in head injuries due
to helmets. Or perhaps San Diego (part of the USofA last time I
visited) is just like the other countries where large increases in
helmet wearing had no measurable effect on head injuries. Even the San
Deigo researchers seemed to have resigned themselves to that conclusion
although they clearly didn't want to.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[James Annan]

gds wrote:


> I'll go back to my earlier response. If the reality is that there is no
> problem, i.e. the risk of injury is so miniscule that it is not worth
> any worry whatso ever. And even if one did worry helmets had no impact
> on injury severity anyway. Then why are so many experienced cycling
> advocats, folks with no financial interest to either insurance or
> helmet industries instituting and supporting helmet use? It seems that
> large numbers of experienced cyclists are rejecting the research you
> proffer. Why?

Because it seems like "common sense" to them that helmets should help a
bit, and they've never looked in detail at the research investigating
whether this assumption is actually true.

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

 

[gds]

Tony Raven wrote:
> gds wrote:
> > Tony Raven wrote:
> >
> >> I don't know who these people are but in Europe its a small minority
> >> that wear helmets - 1 in 1000 in Holland. And in the UK the cycling
> >> bodies do not promote helmets - that is left to the non-cyclist shroud
> >> wavers who want to impose their views on cyclists. I know very few
> >> cycling advocates who promote cycle helmets. > --
> >
> > But in the US that is not the case. So, again we have different
> > situations and thus difficulty in comparing. Making it still harder to
> > understand what is really happening overall.
> >
>
> I bet if we produced US figures you would say but they don't look at my
> town. And if we looked at your town you would claim they don't look at
> the streets in your town. And if we looked at the streets in your town
> you would say that it wasn't the streets you ride....so on ad infinitum.
>
> But the study for San Diego showed no measurable effect of increasing
> adult helmet use from 7.5% to 30% in one year and of child helmet use
> from 0% to 40%. Perhaps they too changed their injury reporting habits
> overnight to compensate exactly for your decrease in head injuries due
> to helmets. Or perhaps San Diego (part of the USofA last time I
> visited) is just like the other countries where large increases in
> helmet wearing had no measurable effect on head injuries. Even the San
> Deigo researchers seemed to have resigned themselves to that conclusion
> although they clearly didn't want to.
>
>

More implied insuts--oh well!
Please lets have the discussion have some sort of linearity. I respond
on helmet use and you go back to the SD Study. If I talk about the
problems with the study you respond that 1 in a 1000 Dutch cyclist wear
helmets.
I won't apologise about being hard to please about accepting research
findings that are not consistent with what the study design was able to
perform. But hey! There is no reason you have to be so picky. You are
abwolutely free to believe whatever you want. But when you go about
trying to "sell" your beliefs on the basis of research which simply
does not prove what you claim you run into problems. And that--I am
arguing- is why your arguments have not carried in a) the political
jurisdictions which created mandatory helmet use, b) insurance
companies requirements (some do whether you admit it or not), c) many,
many cycling clubs in the US, whether driven by insurance or not d)
almost every cycling event in the US , whether driven by insurance or
not, e) every single USCF cycle race in the US, f) most (and
increasing) cycle races in Europe and the rest of the world, g) etc,
etc.

Since you have all that great convincing data it seems amazing that you
are able to present it such that any organized sector of the cycling
world will agree.

Ah! it's terrible to have god speak to you when no one else can hear.

 

[Tony Raven]

gds wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> gds wrote:
>>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't know who these people are but in Europe its a small minority
>>>> that wear helmets - 1 in 1000 in Holland. And in the UK the cycling
>>>> bodies do not promote helmets - that is left to the non-cyclist shroud
>>>> wavers who want to impose their views on cyclists. I know very few
>>>> cycling advocates who promote cycle helmets. > --
>>> But in the US that is not the case. So, again we have different
>>> situations and thus difficulty in comparing. Making it still harder to
>>> understand what is really happening overall.
>>>
>> I bet if we produced US figures you would say but they don't look at my
>> town. And if we looked at your town you would claim they don't look at
>> the streets in your town. And if we looked at the streets in your town
>> you would say that it wasn't the streets you ride....so on ad infinitum.
>>
>> But the study for San Diego showed no measurable effect of increasing
>> adult helmet use from 7.5% to 30% in one year and of child helmet use
>> from 0% to 40%. Perhaps they too changed their injury reporting habits
>> overnight to compensate exactly for your decrease in head injuries due
>> to helmets. Or perhaps San Diego (part of the USofA last time I
>> visited) is just like the other countries where large increases in
>> helmet wearing had no measurable effect on head injuries. Even the San
>> Deigo researchers seemed to have resigned themselves to that conclusion
>> although they clearly didn't want to.
>>
>>
>
> More implied insuts--oh well!
> Please lets have the discussion have some sort of linearity. I respond
> on helmet use and you go back to the SD Study. If I talk about the
> problems with the study you respond that 1 in a 1000 Dutch cyclist wear
> helmets.
> I won't apologise about being hard to please about accepting research
> findings that are not consistent with what the study design was able to
> perform. But hey! There is no reason you have to be so picky. You are
> abwolutely free to believe whatever you want. But when you go about
> trying to "sell" your beliefs on the basis of research which simply
> does not prove what you claim you run into problems. And that--I am
> arguing- is why your arguments have not carried in a) the political
> jurisdictions which created mandatory helmet use, b) insurance
> companies requirements (some do whether you admit it or not), c) many,
> many cycling clubs in the US, whether driven by insurance or not d)
> almost every cycling event in the US , whether driven by insurance or
> not, e) every single USCF cycle race in the US, f) most (and
> increasing) cycle races in Europe and the rest of the world, g) etc,
> etc.
>

And for all those helmets they wear in the US they still have head
injury rates six times those of the Netherlands where they hardly wear
helmets at all.

But please do explain what it is about the time series research results
that is "not consistent with what the study design was able to perform"
preferably without alluding to things they were not studying such as
injuries insufficiently serious to be reported or relying on implausible
compensatory events that had to coincide exactly with the MHL's.


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[SMS]

James Annan wrote:

> Because it seems like "common sense" to them that helmets should help a
> bit, and they've never looked in detail at the research investigating
> whether this assumption is actually true.

You simply refuse to understand that many of them _have_ looked in
detail at the "research" and understand it for the junk science that
they are.

It pains me to use the word "research" when nearly all of the studies
trotted out by the anti-helmet folks don't qualify as research by any
stretch of the imagination.

Many experienced cyclists do not wear helmets, or at least not every
time they get on their bicycle. But most are under no illusion that in
the unlikely event that they get into a head-impact crash, that they'd
be better off with a helmet than without one.

As gds points out, the retrospective population studies regarding
helmets are flawed. Studies done pre and post compulsion are especially
flawed, since compulsion introduces a whole new set of variables that
are not, and can not, be accounted for.

 

[[email protected]]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> >Which ones are those?
>
> That explains it: your perceptual filters prevent you from seeing
> anything which might conflict with your macho bike messenger view of
> cycling as a dangerous activity. This explains why arguing with you
> has always been a waste of time.

That's your answer to 'which ones are those?'

You're a very strange man.

R

 

[Clive George]

"gds" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> The real world has voted against your conclusion. That is why most
> clubs and certainly almost all organized rides, races, tours, etc
> require helmets.

Fortunately not here. Hooray for the CTC.

cheers,
clive

 

[Mike Kruger]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> So why do you think the graphs for head injuries in adults and children
> (Figs 1 & 2) only move within normal statistical fluctuations, with
> significant changes in helmet wearing levels. Indeed in the first year of
> Fig 1, helmet wearing quadruples but the head injuries go up, not down,
> although I doubt the increase in injuries is more than statistical
> fluctuations in the small sample. Meanwhile in Fig 2 helmet wearing goes
> from 0 to 40% in 3 years yet head injuries stay within the sample natural
> noise variations of 25 +/- SQRT25.
>
I'm going to pull a bit of rank here. I actually AM a statistician.

Figures 1 and 2 are basically **** from a causal standpoint. As the authors
note their model didn't fit well. Even HAD the model fit well, you couldn't
rule other other problems (such as, for example, the amount of cycling
changing over the time of the study). If figure 1 and 2 looked the same,
but were based on a much larger sample, they still would be basically ****
from a causal standpoint. Fundamental flaws in a logical argument aren't
helped much by a larger sample.

It's also relatively poor statistical hygiene to compare normalized rates
(e.g. percentage of helmet use) with unnormalized rates (number of head
injuries). For example, if the population doubles in San Diego but the
behavior stays the same, the percent of helmet use wouldn't change but head
injuries would be expected to double. Lots of people make this error,
though, and the population isn't growing that fast in San Diego over 5
years, so this is minor.

I haven't read the whole study thoroughly enough to have an opinion on the
rest of it, nor do I really want to get involved in the helmet wars.

 

[[email protected]]

gds wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't know who these people are but in Europe its a small minority
> > that wear helmets - 1 in 1000 in Holland. And in the UK the cycling
> > bodies do not promote helmets - that is left to the non-cyclist shroud
> > wavers who want to impose their views on cyclists. I know very few
> > cycling advocates who promote cycle helmets. > --
>
> But in the US that is not the case. So, again we have different
> situations and thus difficulty in comparing. Making it still harder to
> understand what is really happening overall.

I don't think it's that hard to understand.

Many parts of Europe have long had a cycling culture, in the sense that
riding a bike is a part of "normal life." England is not tops in this
regard, yet when I was last in England, in 2001, I saw perhaps 100
times the amount of utility cycling I normally see in the US. Ditto
for Ireland when I was last there.

Cycling is different in the US. ISTM the two biggest types of adult
riding are the "drive the car to the bike trail, cruise up & back,
drive home" type, and the "Let's play Lance" club scene. Riding to the
grocery is only for freaks like me. (In my village of 3000, there are
only two regular utility riders.)

For the normal American adult, then, riding the bike is a "special"
activity, an unusual one. That makes it easy to convince him that
special gear is absolutely necessary. And it makes it easy to convince
him that cycling is really dangerous. He can't look at hundreds of
other familiar cyclists and note that they are still alive, day after
day.

Try telling a Dutch housewife that she _must_ wear a psychedelic
styrofoam squid on her head, because what she and her mother and
grandmother have done every day for the past 30+ years is Very
Dangerous.



P.S. - Once, our club was shown a slide show from a cyclist's extended
European trip. They showed a slide show. The number of "ordinary"
European cyclists was a revelation to many club members. Then one guy
said "Tsk! No helmets!!"

I thought: Such hubris! How could this plump, lycra-wearing weekend
rider pretend he knows better than those hundreds of people who ride
each and every day?

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

gds wrote:
>
> I won't apologise about being hard to please about accepting research
> findings that are not consistent with what the study design was able to
> perform. But hey! There is no reason you have to be so picky. You are
> abwolutely free to believe whatever you want. But when you go about
> trying to "sell" your beliefs on the basis of research which simply
> does not prove what you claim you run into problems.

As I've said, I think your interpretation of the value of the research
is obviously different from many others'.

I'll also point out, the history of these discussions on Usenet is
long. Over the years, there is no doubt the trend in "conversions" has
been from pro-helmet to helmet-skeptic. I know of quite a few who were
once pro-helmet but now argue the opposite side. In fact, I am
definitely one of them. I don't know of _anyone_ who's made the
opposite change.

IOW, once more data is shown, the trend is to reject helmet promotion.


> And that--I am
> arguing- is why your arguments have not carried in a) the political
> jurisdictions which created mandatory helmet use,

If you look at the rate of enactment of MHLs, you'll find it peaked
long ago. And I'm pleased to say that we recently got word that the
latest effort to mandate helmets in my state failed yet again. (SMS
won't like this, but I was once again asked by my state advocacy
organization to compose the anti-law letter to legislators. Despite
his claims to the contrary, my arguments seem to have worked.)

> b) insurance
> companies requirements (some do whether you admit it or not),

Before you use that as evidence for your views, I'd appreciate some
citations indicating it's true. The two insurance policies our club
uses do NOT require helmets. We've never had one that did.

> c) many,
> many cycling clubs in the US, whether driven by insurance or not

I've already explained this adequately, I believe.

> d) almost every cycling event in the US , whether driven by insurance or
> not,

Yes, run by the same sort of club members that are so susceptible to
the propaganda, as I detailed. You shoudn't count this as a separate
instance!

e) every single USCF cycle race in the US, f) most (and increasing)
cycle races in Europe and the rest of the world,

Hold it! Personally, I'm not talking about bike racing, any more than
I'm talking about NASCAR. I would not do an amateur crit race or (say)
a Madison track race without a helmet. But then, I avoid those as
being obviously risky.

> Since you have all that great convincing data it seems amazing that you
> are able to present it such that any organized sector of the cycling
> world will agree.

???

Despite what you seem to think, there are MANY "organized sectors of
the cycling world" that are skeptical of helmet promotion!

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

SMS wrote:
> James Annan wrote:
>
> > Because it seems like "common sense" to them that helmets should help a
> > bit, and they've never looked in detail at the research investigating
> > whether this assumption is actually true.
>
> You simply refuse to understand that many of them _have_ looked in
> detail at the "research" and understand it for the junk science that
> they are.

Steven, would you _please_ give a specific citation so we could tell
what study you're trying to talk about? At least once? Please??

Your vague handwaving makes no positive impression on anybody.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[James Annan]

SMS wrote:

> As gds points out, the retrospective population studies regarding
> helmets are flawed. Studies done pre and post compulsion are especially
> flawed, since compulsion introduces a whole new set of variables that
> are not, and can not, be accounted for.

The fact that these hypothetical variables always mask or even outweigh
the "benefit" of a massive increase in helmet wearing is itself proof
that helmets have hardly any effect.

James

 

[SMS]

Mike Kruger wrote:

> I haven't read the whole study thoroughly enough to have an opinion on the
> rest of it, nor do I really want to get involved in the helmet wars.

Good decision.

As the author of _Econometric Modeling as Junk Science_ wrote: "How much
time should researchers spend replicating and criticizing studies using
methods that have repeatedly failed?" See
"http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/econojunk.doc".

Unfortunately, the fact, as you stated, regarding the "****" in the
studies, is unlikely to change the mind of anyone that has already
decided that the facts really don't matter.

 

[Tony Raven]

Mike Kruger wrote:
>
> I'm going to pull a bit of rank here. I actually AM a statistician.
>
> Figures 1 and 2 are basically **** from a causal standpoint. As the authors
> note their model didn't fit well. Even HAD the model fit well, you couldn't
> rule other other problems (such as, for example, the amount of cycling
> changing over the time of the study). If figure 1 and 2 looked the same,
> but were based on a much larger sample, they still would be basically ****
> from a causal standpoint. Fundamental flaws in a logical argument aren't
> helped much by a larger sample.
>

Thanks for that useful insight. Just out of interest how much would
cycling have to have increased between Year 1 and Year 2 on Fig 1 to
create the slight rise rise in head injuries with a four fold increase
in helmet wearing and assuming the standard figure used by helmet
proponents of 85% protection? Is that a reasonable or likely increase
over one year and if it was, what was the cause and why did the rate of
increase not continue into the second year. One can never completely
rule out all these confounding factors but one can apply balance of
plausibility to the different alternatives.


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[Tony Raven]

SMS wrote:

>
> You simply refuse to understand that many of them _have_ looked in
> detail at the "research" and understand it for the junk science that
> they are.
>

Many here in uk.rec.cycling are trained scientists and engineers who
have looked at the data and changed our opinions on helmets over the
last couple of years, having been triggered into looking at the research
by the spectre of compulsion. Two years ago I was like most others; I
assumed that helmets would be beneficial. It was only when I started to
review the literature that I realised it didn't add up, as did quite a
few others at the time. Hence the formation of the cyclehelmets.org
site. The majority of people who wear helmets that I know or who ask me
why I don't wear one are unaware of and surprised by the research
evidence. So what you refuse to understand is that most helmets are
warn by default and not because of knowledge of the research.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>, Just zis Guy,
you know? ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:41:49 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm
> <[email protected]> said in <[email protected]>:
>
> >in my case it's clear that gardening is well over 100 times more
> >injurious per hour than cycling.
>
> Massively more so in my case: I have needed surgery under general
> anaesthetic to fix one gardening injury, no cycling crash has ever
> been that bad!

What is this thing you Earth people call "gardening"?

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Murdock's Gardening Law: if it's green, the paving isn't finished yet.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>, gds
([email protected]) wrote:

> The real world has voted against your conclusion. That is why most
> clubs and certainly almost all organized rides, races, tours, etc
> require helmets. They may all be wrong but they almost all seem to be
> rejecting your arguments and the research on which it is based. So,
> don't you think it may be time for a little critical thinking on your
> part to determine why.

FSVO "Real World". With the exception of races, I have yet to encounter
an organised ride or tour wherein MartleHats are mandated, and any such
will find itself having to go on without me...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
It would appear apparent, to me at least, that dinosaurs were largely
burrowing creatures.