gds wrote:
> OK Frank, but all your cricisms of my hypothesis dont' matter. Because
> from the data presented you can't prove it one way or the other.
.... keeping in mind that "proof" obviously means "proof to the
satisfaction of a particular individual."
> And
> yes it implies that helmets "hurt" half the wearers. That was on
> purpose so that you could not accuse me of a pro helmet bias. But
> again, the point is that the hypothesis is "possible" and is not at
> odds with the study results.
Again, I think any objective person would consider that explanation far
fetched.
But still, look at the results as filtered through your hypothesis!
Neither your hypothetical explanation for the results, nor the much
more likely one, justifies the current enthusiastic, top-priority
promotion of helmets!
> And tthus as an alternative hypothesis it
> points ut why what you claim to be "findings" are also just a
> hypothetical supposition.
> I know you folks don't want to let go of this truththat you believe but
> it just has not been proven.
Frankly, ISTM you've given (obviously without evidence) an alternate
explanation nobody will buy; and if they do buy it, it's practically
equivelent to the much more direct conclusion, that helmets aren't
doing what's claimed.
>
> So, what would I suggest. I've presented it before but ... oh well here
> goes.
>
> I want a prospective population based study. I recognize that the issue
> will not command the $$ for world wide study. I'd like to take the
> mandatory issue out and concentrate purely on efficacy.
>
> As a first study of its kind I would limit it geographically. Say we
> pick the US, but you can choose some other places if you like.
> I would then begin stratifiying the US population so that we could do
> some proper sampling. Urban, suburban, rural. New England , Mid west,
> South east, etc.
>
> We would then draw population based samples (there are plenty of folks
> who do this all day including marketing research companies and major
> survey research groups at such places as the University of Michigan and
> University of Wisconsin) I would then survery the sample population
> and determine such things as: do they cycle, if so what types of
> cycling activites and how much of each, do they wear a helemt, have
> they had an acident, if so did thye get medical help, nature of the
> accident, etc. etc. You can add any variables to the list that you
> think are important.
>
> And yes this method will not address risk compensation directly but it
> would be the first study that actually has the statistics about what is
> happening. Depending on what they show folks can decide if further
> understanding of "why" is warranted.
>
> I really do not see how you can have the answer to question any other
> way.
Well, we may not get an answer that will satisfy _you_ any other way!
Not everyone agrees that your standard for proof is the correct one.
But regarding your proposed study, I think it fails the "reasonable
expense" test. Here's why: Unless you treat every nick, scrape and
bruise as serious enough to catalog, you'll need a huge sample size to
get any statistical validity.
Why? Because during any given year, only a few hundredths of a percent
of the population injure themselves seriously on a bike. And contrary
to popular myth, not every "serious" bike injury is a head injury.
You'll need to contact tens of thousands of people for every person
with a noteworthy brain injury from biking. (And yes, I'm specifically
saying "brain injury" because that's what fearmongers have tied to
bicycling, even though they count cut ears as "head injuries.")
To do this in, say, five areas of the country, in urban, suburban and
rural surroundings, and perhaps to separate kids and adults, and to get
enough "cases" to crunch statistically, you'll need to contact millions
of people.
That's how it seems to me, anyway. IOW, the study that would satisfy
you can't be done - and it can't be done _specifically_ because serious
head injury on a bike is vanishingly rare!
Thus, the very act of examining your proposal should remove the reason
for your proposal. And it removes the justification for the promotion
of bike helmets.
- Frank Krygowski