Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark

  • Thread starter Elisa Francesca Roselli
  • Start date



SMS wrote:
>
> It's amusing when you see the posts by cyclists in countries with MHLs,
> claiming that they've been riding for 20, 30, 40, 50, years, etc., but
> gave it up when the MHL was enacted. Then they claim that the number of
> cyclists has gone down, solely because of the MHL, yet the
> injury/fatality rate has declined only linearly with the alleged decline
> in the number of riders. There's at least three problems with their
> claims. First, if indeed cycling has declined, it was not due solely to
> the MHL. Second, if it's the long time riders that have given up cycling
> rather than wear a helmet, then the average experience level of the
> remaining cyclists has gone way down, and third, the injury fatality
> rate reduction must be attributed to helmets, since it's now less
> experienced cyclists, which have more accidents, that are comprising a
> larger proportion of the cycling population.
>
> Of course, none of their original claims have been proven, so until a
> real study is done, there is no way of knowing any of this.


Oh, I think we can make a pretty good guess. What do you think are the
chances that the MHL induced experience profile change you claim was
such that it exactly cancelled out in each state and in each country the
reduction in head injuries that you claim the MHL would have prevented?

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Yes! Any nasty injuries or particularly bad
> experiences of individuals must be expunged
> from our accident survey, to make 'more
> realistic' results! Clearly these 'outliers' will
> 'exert a strong upward bias on the average'
> so we shall ignore them lest they jack up
> our surveys! Careful readers of the Kifer
> survey, for instance, may notice that he has
> chosen not to report the injuries of one
> respondent who claimed 4 injuries in the
> previous year. Of course, the experiences of
> any who ride 50 years with no injury will
> be gleefully included without an eye-blink.
> Stats are fun aren't they?


When you're looking at insurance, the number of outliers is what needs
to be carefully considered. I.e., in health insurance and life
insurance, most people are not outliers, which keeps the rates from
being outrageous, but the statistical probability of outliers is an
important consideration. Of course some insurance companies desperately
try to keep the people that are likely to be outliers from obtaining
policies in the first place.

My favorite papers are the ones that add up the medical expenses and
compare them against the cost of the helmets. Invariably, the conclusion
is that helmets are a bad deal, because the cost of treating a
relatively few number of more severe injuries is less than the total
expenditure on helmets. As if people that are debating whether or not to
wear a helmet are calculating their deductibles, co-pays, and maximum
out of pocket expenses, versus the probability that they will ever have
a crash where a helmet would make any difference.
 
gds wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> It's amusing when you see the posts by cyclists in countries with MHLs,
>> claiming that they've been riding for 20, 30, 40, 50, years, etc., but
>> gave it up when the MHL was enacted. Then they claim that the number of
>> cyclists has gone down, solely because of the MHL, yet the
>> injury/fatality rate has declined only linearly with the alleged decline
>> in the number of riders. There's at least three problems with their
>> claims. First, if indeed cycling has declined, it was not due solely to
>> the MHL. Second, if it's the long time riders that have given up cycling
>> rather than wear a helmet, then the average experience level of the
>> remaining cyclists has gone way down, and third, the injury fatality
>> rate reduction must be attributed to helmets, since it's now less
>> experienced cyclists, which have more accidents, that are comprising a
>> larger proportion of the cycling population.
>>
>> Of course, none of their original claims have been proven, so until a
>> real study is done, there is no way of knowing any of this.

>
> Those are some interesting observations. Particularly about what the
> experience distribution of cyclists abandoning cycling in response to
> MHL's might be.


Well clearly it's not kids that abandoned cycling when an adult MHL was
implemented, when an MHL for kids already existed. The people
complaining the most about the MHLs are the long time cyclists, with
good reason, but I don't think that they are representative, as most
long time cyclists that didn't already wear a helmet wouldn't give up
riding just because they had to now wear one. The once-a-year cyclist,
with the bikes hanging in the garage, except for that sub-10 mile ride
once a year, may be the most likely. The real question is whether or not
there was a step change in cycling levels that was caused solely by a
helmet law, and that as prolonged (not measured immediately after the
helmet law took effect). What the AHZ people often do, is to equate
correlation with causation.

> Interestingly if you look at many groups of very experienced cyclists,
> by a variety of measures, you are very l ikely to find that many (of
> us) now use helmets but certainly if you are over the age of , say, 50
> it is very likely that lots, even most, of that cycling experience was
> gained helmetless.


Yes, this is true. That said, much of that experience was gained under
different circumstances than we have now, in terms of the experience and
skill level of the vehicle drivers. I live in an area where more and
more of the population learned to drive in their 30's and 40's, rather
than in their teens. These people are particularly poor drivers, and it
affects the number of cyclists and pedestrians, especially kids.

> Just like the idea of risk compnesation, which is a valid concept but
> very hard to measure for this question, so is the idea of what
> behaviorial differences might exist between adaptors and non adaptors
> of helmets. And since these variables are not well addressed in the
> extant studies we simply don't know. And given boththe relatively low
> accident rates and the very low rate of "who cares" it is likely that
> we will never have a really good handle on this unless some motivated
> individual or organization actually goes out and sponsors the conduct
> of a proper study.


I doubt if anyone cares enough to fund such a study. You might get the
helmet manufacturer's to fund it, but then the AHZ's wouldn't believe it
anyway, so what's the point?
 
Cheap sniping, but as you've so disparaging of views based on studies which
don't conclusively prove things:

1.

> I live in an area where more
> and more of the population learned to drive in their 30's and 40's,
> rather than in their teens.


2.

> These people are particularly poor drivers,


3.

> and it affects the number of cyclists and pedestrians, especially kids.


Of course, none of your original claims have been proven, so until a
real study is done, there is no way of knowing any of this.
 
SMS wrote:
>
> Well clearly it's not kids that abandoned cycling when an adult MHL was
> implemented, when an MHL for kids already existed.


And your reference for this is?

> The people
> complaining the most about the MHLs are the long time cyclists, with
> good reason, but I don't think that they are representative, as most
> long time cyclists that didn't already wear a helmet wouldn't give up
> riding just because they had to now wear one.


And your reference for this is?

> The once-a-year cyclist,
> with the bikes hanging in the garage, except for that sub-10 mile ride
> once a year, may be the most likely.


And your reference for this is?


--
Tony

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

> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> It's in Bicycle Transportation: A Handbook for
>> Cycling Transportation Engineers, 1994. What
>> he claimed was that 10 years of riding experience
>> reduced a rider's injury rate by 80%.

>
>
> It's amusing when you see the posts by cyclists in countries with MHLs,
> claiming that they've been riding for 20, 30, 40, 50, years, etc., but
> gave it up when the MHL was enacted.


Give some examples, please.

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/
 
gds wrote:
> See the discusion seveal years ago at:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/aus....+of+helmet+laws&rnum=1&hl=en#20ab92bc8b9fb83a
>


Which is showing what other than lots of people confirming what Guy,
Frank, I and others have been saying and you and Scharf the Larf have
tried desperately to deny? Was there something else you were trying to
point to?

>
> As usual the discussion wanders on and off topic but there are some
> examples, even if not very good ones.
>


Wonderful from the person who continually criticises others people data.


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
gds wrote:
> See the discusion seveal years ago at:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/aus....+of+helmet+laws&rnum=1&hl=en#20ab92bc8b9fb83a
>
> As usual the discussion wanders on and off topic but there are some
> examples, even if not very good ones.
>


I didn't see any. Which posts in particular did you mean?

Mind you, I didn't read it all that carefully - I'm not going to trawl
through threads hoping to find something vaguely related, I simply asked
if you could provide some examples of (reinstating what you snipped):

>> the posts by cyclists in countries with
>> MHLs, claiming that they've been riding for 20, 30, 40, 50, years,
>> etc., but gave it up when the MHL was enacted.


So, have you found any yet?

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/
 
gds wrote:
[SMS wrote:
> It's amusing when you see the posts by cyclists in countries with MHLs,
> claiming that they've been riding for 20, 30, 40, 50, years, etc., but
> gave it up when the MHL was enacted.]


> See the discusion seveal years ago at:
> http://groups.google.com/group/aus....+of+helmet+laws&rnum=1&hl=en#20ab92bc8b9fb83a
>
> As usual the discussion wanders on and off topic but there are some
> examples, even if not very good ones.


Yes, typical meandering USENET thread. But are there actually any
examples in there that back up Steven's claim? I.e. someone posting
who says that they personally gave up cycling after 20 or more years
because of a MHL?

His claim that it's primarily the active experienced riders who would
quit leaving the inexperienced novices with a high accident rate
doesn't strike me as at all logical and I see no evidence to back it
up. Of course that's not surprising when it comes to SMS's claims
 
peter wrote:

> His claim that it's primarily the active experienced riders who would
> quit leaving the inexperienced novices with a high accident rate
> doesn't strike me as at all logical and I see no evidence to back it
> up. Of course that's not surprising when it comes to SMS's claims


Don't misinterpret what I wrote, I never claimed that, your snide
remarks not withstanding.

There have been statements from the AHZs that this has happened in
countries with MHLs, or it will happen if MHLs are adopted. If they
really believe this, then their claim that the injury/accident rate has
fallen in lockstep with the alleged declining number of cyclists (also
unproven) doesn't take into account the declining experience level. You
can go through the helmet threads on Google Groups and look for those
posts if you wish, I'm not doing it for you.

Maybe you should think about stopping with the insults, as it doesn't
help your position.
 
James Annan wrote:

> Mind you, I didn't read it all that carefully - I'm not going to trawl
> through threads hoping to find something vaguely related, I simply asked
> if you could provide some examples of (reinstating what you snipped):


Ah, you just expect someone else to trawl through the threads for you.
Thanks for clearing that up.
 
SMS wrote:
> peter wrote:
>
> > His claim that it's primarily the active experienced riders who would
> > quit leaving the inexperienced novices with a high accident rate
> > doesn't strike me as at all logical and I see no evidence to back it
> > up. Of course that's not surprising when it comes to SMS's claims

>
> Don't misinterpret what I wrote, I never claimed that, your snide
> remarks not withstanding.


No misinterpretation that I can see.

Here's what you wrote at 8:04 this morning:
"It's amusing when you see the posts by cyclists in countries with
MHLs,
claiming that they've been riding for 20, 30, 40, 50, years, etc., but
gave it up when the MHL was enacted." followed by "if it's the long
time riders that have given up cycling rather than wear a helmet, then
the average experience level of the
remaining cyclists has gone way down." You then tied the lower
experience level to a higher accident rate "it's now less experienced
cyclists, which have more accidents, that are comprising a larger
proportion of the cycling population."
I stand by my summary above of the claims that you had made.

So where are these posts that you claim to find amusing? The ones from
longterm cyclists who have given up cycling due to MHLs.

>
> There have been statements from the AHZs that this has happened in
> countries with MHLs, or it will happen if MHLs are adopted.


This is totally different that your claim above. Counts of cyclists
have shown that the numbers of riders dropped following enactment of
MHLs in various jurisdictions. But that doesn't mean that the people
who are active enough in cycling to bother posting to newsgroups would
be the ones to drop the activity, nor is there any indication that it
would be primarily the more experienced riders who would either ride
less often or stop entirely.

> If they
> really believe this, then their claim that the injury/accident rate has
> fallen in lockstep with the alleged declining number of cyclists (also
> unproven) doesn't take into account the declining experience level.


You're the only one making the claim of declining experience level. If
you have some evidence to support this then go ahead and present it.

> You
> can go through the helmet threads on Google Groups and look for those
> posts if you wish, I'm not doing it for you.


You're the one who claimed that you found these posts amusing - I
presume you could remember where you might have seen at least a few of
them.
>
> Maybe you should think about stopping with the insults, as it doesn't
> help your position.


No insult, just a statement of fact. Produce the posts you claimed to
find amusing or it'll continue to be a fact that many of your claims
are unsupported by any evidence. Considering that you said they were
from riders of 20, 30, 40, 50, etc. years of experience there must be
quite a few such quotes you can cite.
 
"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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".
>

Thanks for the reference. It's a good article, and nontechnical enough to
be easily understood.
 
SMS wrote:
>
> My favorite papers are the ones that add up the medical expenses and
> compare them against the cost of the helmets. Invariably, the conclusion
> is that helmets are a bad deal, because the cost of treating a
> relatively few number of more severe injuries is less than the total
> expenditure on helmets. As if people that are debating whether or not to
> wear a helmet are calculating their deductibles, co-pays, and maximum
> out of pocket expenses, versus the probability that they will ever have
> a crash where a helmet would make any difference.


Personally, I'm strongly doubting that you actually read any of the
pertinent papers. You have absolutely refused to cite any specific
ones, and most of your general comments on them are inaccurate. I
believe what you're doing is inferring the content of the papers from
what you read here - and getting even that wrong, by filtering through
your perceptions.

But even if you have read the papers that relate to costs of helmets
vs. costs of treating medical expenses, you've obviously missed the
point. Most helmet laws are sold at least partly on the
rationalization that it's cheaper for society to buy helmets than to
treat head injuries. The handwringing spiel goes something like this:
"It can cost up to $100,000 to treat a serious head injury, yet a
miraculous foam hat costs only $20. If everyone bought foam hats, we'd
save $400 billion dollars per year in medical costs."

Hendrie D., Legge M., Rosman D. and Kirov C., "An Economic Evaluation
of the Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Legislation in Western Australia," Road
Accident Prevention Research Unit, Department of Public Health, The
University of Western Australia, Nedlands WA 6907, Australia, November
1999 was a paper that looked at the results of a very "successful"
helmet law - one that got almost all riders to wear helmets (and chased
all who wouldn't wear helmets away from cycling). The paper returned
the conclusion that the law was almost certainly a money-loser. That
is, the total cost of helmets (plus enforcement, etc.) was greater than
the money saved on medical treatment.

If you think such a cost comparison is irrelevant, your argument should
be with the people that make those hand-wringing statements in front of
legislators - NOT against the people who have proven those statements
false.

- Frank Krygowski
 
SMS wrote:
> peter wrote:
>
> > His claim that it's primarily the active experienced riders who would
> > quit leaving the inexperienced novices with a high accident rate
> > doesn't strike me as at all logical and I see no evidence to back it
> > up. Of course that's not surprising when it comes to SMS's claims

>
> Don't misinterpret what I wrote, I never claimed that, your snide
> remarks not withstanding.
>
> There have been statements from the AHZs that this has happened in
> countries with MHLs, or it will happen if MHLs are adopted.


Oh?

I don't recall ever seeing _anyone_ make such a claim, except for
perhaps yourself. I believe it, too, is a figment of your imagination.

Feel free to prove me wrong, of course. Just give us proper citations.


Even if you can't give us proper citations of any real research papers,
you ought to at _least_ be able to give us proper citations of an
internet post you clearly believe you remember!

We're waiting, Steven.

- Frank Krygowski
 
SMS wrote:
> James Annan wrote:
>
> > Mind you, I didn't read it all that carefully - I'm not going to trawl
> > through threads hoping to find something vaguely related, I simply asked
> > if you could provide some examples of (reinstating what you snipped):

>
> Ah, you just expect someone else to trawl through the threads for you.
> Thanks for clearing that up.


Indeed, I had no intention of wasting my time on trying to verify some
claim that seems to be false - and which of course in principle cannot
be falsified, only left unsupported (as it is at present).

I was naively assuming that when you stated:

> It's amusing when you see the posts by cyclists in countries with MHLs,
> claiming that they've been riding for 20, 30, 40, 50, years, etc., but
> gave it up when the MHL was enacted.


then you would actually be able to provide some evidence of "the posts"
that "you see". Instead we all see that you were blowing smoke. Thanks
for clearing that up.

James
 
SMS wrote:
> peter wrote:
>
>> His claim that it's primarily the active experienced riders who would
>> quit leaving the inexperienced novices with a high accident rate
>> doesn't strike me as at all logical and I see no evidence to back it
>> up. Of course that's not surprising when it comes to SMS's claims

>
> Don't misinterpret what I wrote, I never claimed that, your snide
> remarks not withstanding.
>
> There have been statements from the AHZs that this has happened in
> countries with MHLs, or it will happen if MHLs are adopted. If they
> really believe this, then their claim that the injury/accident rate has
> fallen in lockstep with the alleged declining number of cyclists (also
> unproven) doesn't take into account the declining experience level. You
> can go through the helmet threads on Google Groups and look for those
> posts if you wish, I'm not doing it for you.
>
> Maybe you should think about stopping with the insults, as it doesn't
> help your position.


Maybe you should think of once, just once, for a change, backing up you
claims and allegations with one iota of evidence. Then the insults
might abate if not stop. Until then.

You still have not addressed the question I raised of why you think a
change in the experience profile of cyclists would exactly compensate
for the protective effect of helmets in each the Australian states and
in several countries where MHL's were introduced. Could it be that both
were zero rather than your fanciful notion that each society magically
reacted in a way just sufficient to nullify the helmet effect in their
country

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
In article <[email protected]>,
([email protected]) wrote:

> We're waiting, Steven.


I hope you're not holding your breath, Frank...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Barley, barley, barley, world cruise. You never see a farmer on a bike.
 
peter wrote:
> gds wrote:
> [SMS wrote:
> > It's amusing when you see the posts by cyclists in countries with MHLs,
> > claiming that they've been riding for 20, 30, 40, 50, years, etc., but
> > gave it up when the MHL was enacted.]

>
> > See the discusion seveal years ago at:
> > http://groups.google.com/group/aus....+of+helmet+laws&rnum=1&hl=en#20ab92bc8b9fb83a
> >
> > As usual the discussion wanders on and off topic but there are some
> > examples, even if not very good ones.

>
> Yes, typical meandering USENET thread. But are there actually any
> examples in there that back up Steven's claim? I.e. someone posting
> who says that they personally gave up cycling after 20 or more years
> because of a MHL?
>
> His claim that it's primarily the active experienced riders who would
> quit leaving the inexperienced novices with a high accident rate
> doesn't strike me as at all logical and I see no evidence to back it
> up. Of course that's not surprising when it comes to SMS's claims



I merely pointed to the thread as a discussion of the point in
question. Does anyone see a claim by me of anything else? Does anyone
notice my comment that it wasn't a very good example?

BTW I have no data on what level of experience corelates with riding or
not after a MHL is enacted. Never claimed to have any. If you read my
posts carefully you will note that I say such things as "interesting
observation" and what it might indicate if so.

But again several of you want to mis quote and misconsture what is
being said. So it really makes no difference what one actually says.