Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark

  • Thread starter Elisa Francesca Roselli
  • Start date



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

> f) most (and increasing) cycle races in Europe and the
> rest of the world


MartleHats have been mandated in ALL UCI-sanctioned events for quite
some time (with the exception of the "mountain top finish" rule which
ICBA to navigate through the nightmare which is uci.ch to look up).
Since the death of Andrei Kivilev on Paris-Nice a couple of years ago.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Tip of the Day: 20%
 
[email protected] wrote:
>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??


Or at least make it clear whether he is talking about pro or anti
helmet research, or both. At least half his posts make it hard to tell
whether there is an obvious typo, or he really has got his understanding
of things completely backwards.
 
On 10 Jan 2006 12:46:49 -0800, "gds" <[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>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.


Which supposes that only unreported accidents are prevented. Which
may even be true (Occam's Razor notwithstanding), but since they are
by their very nature trivial it seems pointless to push or even
mandate helmet use on that basis.

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

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:59:26 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>Helmets are the rule, rather than the exception, among
>commuter cyclists in many areas.


For values of "many" which exclude those areas where cycle use is most
common, obviously...

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

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:06:43 -0000, Dave Larrington
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>MartleHats have been mandated in ALL UCI-sanctioned events for quite
>some time (with the exception of the "mountain top finish" rule which
>ICBA to navigate through the nightmare which is uci.ch to look up).
>Since the death of Andrei Kivilev on Paris-Nice a couple of years ago.


Interestingly, there were more race fatalities in the five years
following that ruling than in any decade prior to it.

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

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
In rec.bicycles.misc SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Helmets are the rule, rather than the exception, among commuter
> cyclists in many areas.


Certainly not in this part of the world (Germany) which sees quite a
lot of everyday bicycle usage.

--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:15:29 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>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 is indeed junk science. And the most junk of all is the 1989
Seattle study. In fact, almost every pro-helmet study I have seen is
"junk science". Strangely, however, you choose to ignore that,
reverse the burden of proof, and accuse others of your own worst
faults.

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

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:54:00 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>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?


And since when did that ever stop a helmeteer form trying, and
failing, one more time, to repeat the 85% in the Seattle study? Oh,
but wait, the studies which support your prejudices are accepted
without question, aren't they?

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

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:54:00 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> said in <[email protected]>:
>
> >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?

>
> And since when did that ever stop a helmeteer form trying, and
> failing, one more time, to repeat the 85% in the Seattle study? Oh,
> but wait, the studies which support your prejudices are accepted
> without question, aren't they?
>
> Guy
> --

No!!!
And you just don't listen. There is a whole host of folks who are
criticiszing the studies on both sides. You constantly keep throwing
out red herrings with great displays of frustration. However, you
continually mis quote and mis represent what others say.

Here it is Guy, Frank, Tony, whomever. I am not convinced helmets are
good. bad, or indifferent. Why, becasue I have seen no studies that
convince me of anything. There are lots of studies that "suggest"
conclusions that need to be properly studied.I do not defend bad
studies on any side of the issue.

Gary
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> 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.


My situation is very similar. I was originally of the opinion that
cycling helmets would be of significant value and had been wearing one
since the introduction of the Bell Biker model around 1975. But after
seeing some of the helmet discussions I looked into the research in
more detail, particularly the widely cited Thompson/Rivara case control
study, and changed my mind on the subject. SMS is correct that a
fairly small sample can provide good data if the sample is "properly
selected" but the helmet case control studies like Thompson/Rivara fail
that test since the helmet users are self selected and are likely to
differ in numerous ways from the non-helmet group making the results
highly dubious. OTOH, the experience in New Zealand and Australia,
where substantial increases in helmet usage were not accompanied by a
reduction in the risk to cyclists has convinced me that the protection
offered against serious head injury is marginal at best.
 
James Annan wrote:
> 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.


Two problems with that statement. First, these variables are not
hypothetical, if you believe the various papers written by the
anti-compulsion people. Second, those variables are what make
determining the actual effect of a helmet law so difficult.

If any entity ever decides to do a proper population based study of
helmet effectiveness, then it should be in a country without compulsion.
Until such a study is done, if ever, it's important to reject the junk
science on both sides of the debate, while accepting the raw data on
helmet effectiveness in accidents.
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Said the man who works as a bike messenger despite thinking it is
> deadly dangerous :)


If I thought I was likely to die doing this
job, I would quit, fun as it is. However, I
understand that it is probable that I
will be injured again. Could happen any
minute. It will happen during one of the
short times when I have grown too comfortable
and forgotten about the danger. Hopefully
it will be the kind of injury I can recover from,
and not one that makes me wish I never
started riding bikes.

But I wouldn't worry about the veteran
bike messengers, who I believe have the
lowest accident/injury rate per hour or mile
of any population of cyclists. Compare,
for instance, to Moritz' survey of LAB members
with an average of 17 years riding experience,
which found them injuring themselves about
every 30,000 miles (iirc). That's roughly 2-3
times the accident rate of the old messengers I know.
Beginning riders wreck/injure themselves at
at least 10 times the rate of old messengers (Forester).

Don't worry about the guys who have gained
a respect for the danger of traffic through
hard-earned and often painful experience.
The ones I worry about are those who think
riding a bike in traffic is 'relatively safe,'
without having the experience to back it up,
much less the numbers.

To any beginners out there who have themselves
convinced that riding in traffic is 'relatively safe,'
I will say, It's not safe for you, dumbass. It's only
safe for those with a certain amount of experience.
The statistics reflect the relatively small amount of
cyclists who ride the vast majority of miles. These
are riders who already understand the danger
of traffic. Any beginner who rolls out with a
happy-go-lucky I am relatively safe attitude is
in for it. This is not Holland, dumbasses.

Of course I will be labeled a 'fearmonger' for
speaking the truth on this.

Robert
truthmongering in the USA
 
[email protected] wrote:

> The statistics reflect the relatively small amount of
> cyclists who ride the vast majority of miles. These
> are riders who already understand the danger
> of traffic.


This is a very big problem when the various entities do their studies.
It's a very big variable that is invariably ignored.

> Any beginner who rolls out with a
> happy-go-lucky I am relatively safe attitude is
> in for it. This is not Holland, dumbasses.


Ah, Holland. There should be a Usenet rule, similar to the Usenet Nazi
rule, that whenever someone comes out against helmets using Holland as a
justification, that the thread is over.
 
"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> The statistics reflect the relatively small amount of
>> cyclists who ride the vast majority of miles. These
>> are riders who already understand the danger
>> of traffic.

>
> This is a very big problem when the various entities do their studies.
> It's a very big variable that is invariably ignored.
>
> > Any beginner who rolls out with a
>> happy-go-lucky I am relatively safe attitude is
>> in for it. This is not Holland, dumbasses.

>
> Ah, Holland. There should be a Usenet rule, similar to the Usenet Nazi
> rule, that whenever someone comes out against helmets using Holland as a
> justification, that the thread is over.


That's twice you've requested that this thread be over. Yet you keep
posting...

cheers,
clive
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> > Said the man who works as a bike messenger despite thinking it is
> > deadly dangerous :)

>
> But I wouldn't worry about the veteran
> bike messengers, who I believe have the
> lowest accident/injury rate per hour or mile
> of any population of cyclists.


You believe? Wait a minute - aren't you the guy who's forever asking
for not only data, but all the details on how the data was collected?

Naturally, I'll expect you to meet your own standards now, and tell us
the injury rate per mile and per hour for "veteran bike messengers,"
with full documentation. ;-)

Compare,
> for instance, to Moritz' survey of LAB members
> with an average of 17 years riding experience,
> which found them injuring themselves about
> every 30,000 miles (iirc).


Something like that. Skinned knees mostly, remember?

> That's roughly 2-3
> times the accident rate of the old messengers I know.


Citation?

> Beginning riders wreck/injure themselves at
> at least 10 times the rate of old messengers (Forester).


You've alluded to this before, but I don't recall the details. What
exactly did Forester say, and how exactly did he determine it?

> To any beginners out there who have themselves
> convinced that riding in traffic is 'relatively safe,'
> I will say, It's not safe for you, dumbass.


"Traffic" being defined how, again? Last time I pressed you for a
definition, you said "If there are any motor vehicles anywhere on the
road, it's traffic" ... or words to that effect.

IOW, riding on a wide road that's deserted except for you and one other
car passing the opposite way at 20 mph is riding in "traffic." So
beginners should be warned that even that is ... dangerous!!! <wring
hands here>

Somehow, I've never been terrified by that sort of situation. ;-)

Anyway, I await all the details to support the statements you gave
above.

- Frank Krygowski
 
SMS wrote:
>
>
> Ah, Holland. There should be a Usenet rule, similar to the Usenet Nazi
> rule, that whenever someone comes out against helmets using Holland as a
> justification, that the thread is over.


I urge you to follow up on that idea of yours.

You're free to stop posting now. Really, we can get along without you!
;-)

- Frank Krygowski
 
gds wrote:

> No!!!
> And you just don't listen. There is a whole host of folks who are
> criticiszing the studies on both sides. You constantly keep throwing
> out red herrings with great displays of frustration. However, you
> continually mis quote and mis represent what others say.


Yes, this is true. Especially for the Thompson RS, Rivara, FP, Thompson
DC study. And what's rather amusing about this is that it's not the
study itself that is attacked, because the study, including the
revisions, simply report their results of the research (and the
conclusion should be viewed in that context). It's all the various
journals, politicians, etc. that quote the results of that study without
any disclaimer regarding the study's limitations, and the fact that the
study made no attempt to account for other variables.

> Here it is Guy, Frank, Tony, whomever. I am not convinced helmets are
> good. bad, or indifferent. Why, becasue I have seen no studies that
> convince me of anything. There are lots of studies that "suggest"
> conclusions that need to be properly studied.I do not defend bad
> studies on any side of the issue.


Well stated. You can look at the raw data, even the seemingly
incontrovertible FARS data, and reach any conclusion you want, by making
up all sorts of rationalizations of why the data does not represent
reality, including the very big issue of non-reported accidents.

People like Guy and Frank really need to learn about both statistics and
logical fallacies if they want to successfully fight compulsion laws.
It's difficult to go up against doctors, who's statements, deserving or
not, command more respect from politicians than individuals spouting
about walking helmets and gardening injuries. At least in the U.S., most
politicians at the state and federal level are lawyers. While they may
spout logical fallacies, and use fake statistics in their campaigns, or
to justify their actions, they are usually not taken in by them.

The reason that so many people wear helmets, and that there are so many
compulsion laws, is simply that when head impact accidents occur,
helmeted cyclists fare better. This is the only fact that the
politicians are really looking at, and they are subjected to endless
testimony by trauma physicians and other medical professionals. It's
very hard to fight them with claims like "but only cyclists that are
paranoid about injuries wear helmets or seek treatment."
 
peter wrote:

> My situation is very similar. I was originally of the opinion that
> cycling helmets would be of significant value and had been wearing one
> since the introduction of the Bell Biker model around 1975. But after
> seeing some of the helmet discussions I looked into the research in
> more detail, particularly the widely cited Thompson/Rivara case control
> study, and changed my mind on the subject.


Your mistake here is to read more into the Seattle study than the study
itself reported. This is understandable if you look only at the cites of
the Seattle study, which invariably quote the 85% or 88% numbers without
any explanation of how the study was conducted, or its limitations.

In any case, I doubt that you'll find anyone in this thread, or any of
the other helmet threads, that are in favor of compulsory helmet laws.
However there are at least a few of us that believe that the junk
science, logical fallacies, and mis-use of statistics, do not do the
anti-compulsion cause any good. Such arguments may convince people that
lack critical thinking skills, but those are not the people that really
matter when you're either fighting to stop an MHL, or trying to get one
repealed.