Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

[Burt]

"Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, SMS wrote:
>>
>>If the requests are in the spirit of actually wanting the cites to learn
>>something, then I'm happy to provide them.
>
> I'd like to learn something. Can you give the citations?

as above:

ROFLMBO!!!!

Sorry Alan, I know you mean well, but Straw Man Scharf is, without doubt, a
pathological liar, and you have as much chance of getting him to post
legitimate references as you have of getting Beavis & Butthead aka B***S**t
& Bozark to answer a straight question.

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:

>> PS: was I /really/ the 5000th?

> According to Google, you were #5000 on the RBT version of the thread!

Well, that's the only group that counts!

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Burt wrote:
>"Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> In article <[email protected]>, SMS wrote:
>>>
>>>If the requests are in the spirit of actually wanting the cites to learn
>>>something, then I'm happy to provide them.
>>
>> I'd like to learn something. Can you give the citations?
>
>Sorry Alan, I know you mean well, but Straw Man Scharf is, without doubt, a
>pathological liar, and you have as much chance of getting him to post
>legitimate references as you have of getting Beavis & Butthead aka B***S**t
>& Bozark to answer a straight question.

I was expecting to learn that he was bluffing and couldn't actually give
the cites, pleasant surprise though it might have been to learn something
more useful if he did.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:15:06 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>Fortunately, there are loads of case control studies that can be used to
>figure out just how well various pieces of safety gear work

Er, no. The case-control studies don't help at all here - their
predictions have uniformly failed to be borne out in any real
population. But as everybody knows, highly-cited case-control studies
are not just often but *usually* wrong.

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:13:29 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>The adult helmet laws seem to last only a few years before being
>repealed, but the do-gooders often try again, as evidenced by what's
>happening in Austin now.

Really? Cite the ones which have been enacted and repealed.

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:35:32 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>In the "helmet wars" you're free to go back to the last big war in
>rec.bicycles.misc, where I include many URLs that are links to studies
>that show the correlation between helmet use, injuries, and fatalities.

Amazing how you always refer to some robust evidence which you posted
somewhere, some time, and yet you are unable to repeat the citations
however often you are told that repeated searching fails to yield
these citations to which you allude. It's especially amazing when one
bears in mind that people like Tony Raven and I have extensive
collections of helmet research and routinely cite chapter and verse,
whereas you have yet to show evidence of having read more than the
abstract of any paper.

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:37:25 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>The data is clear, you can choose to try to come up with excuses as to
>why you don't believe it, but you're only lying to yourself, and a very
>small group of hard core anti-helmet people, and not even all of them
>believe what they post.

As usual you accuse others of your own worst fault. Several of us
have studied the research in great detail: the more robust the
research, the less likely it is to show any measurable benefit.

So here's the usual challenge: show me the figures for any population,
anywhere in the world, where increased helmet use can be show to have
led to a measurable reduction in head injuries. With figures for
efficacy from your beloved case-control studies (none of which you
appear to have read!) all in the range 50%-85%, it should be trivial
to show this.

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound