R15757 wrote:
> Frank K wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, you have it backward when you claim I said that. My point was
>>
>>simply that ER visit counts are unreliable, for the >reasons I gave.
>
>
> You are talking out your ass about
> the reliability of ER numbers. You say
> "ER visit counts are unreliable" because the
> numbers do not support your position. In fact
> the ER visit count is very reliable, based on
> years' worth of daily data from literally hundreds
> of ERs.
You seem to be purposefully misunderstanding me.
The _count_ of ER visits is quite reliable. The _necessity_ of ER
visits is not nearly so reliable.
Why? Because whether a person goes to the ER depends on many, many
factors besides the apparent seriousness of the injury. Some of those
factors include the degree of medical coverage (no coverage means less
chance of going); the distance to the ER (100 miles away? It'll heal.);
the age of the person (you're young, it'll heal); the person's own
attitude toward risk ("My pinky! I'll never play violin again!!!!")
The most frequently quoted study of helmet effectiveness was obviously
ruined by this effect. Those wearing helmets were much more likely to
check into the ER than the general population, as shown by a comparison
of percent helmeted in the study population versus street counts.
People who make their kids wear helmets are more likely to take their
kids to the ER "just to be sure." So presentation at an ER is not a
reliable gage of injury severity.
>
>>Your shoulder was not serious. Sorry it hurt, but it sounds like it
>>fell into the grey area of soft tissue injury that every teenage kid
>>endures. Or at least, every teenage kid that does what I did as a
>>teenager. And it did, apparently, heal with no medical >attention.
>
>
> It did more than "hurt." It was a debilitating
> injury. But I agree it was not serious in the
> grand scheme of things.
Good. We agree.
>
>>"Almost ripping your finger off in a wreck" likewise sounds
>>unimpressive. From age 6 to about 13, my son used to come into the
>>house with similar tales about every four days. I think it was part of
>>
>>trying to sound macho.
>
>
> I think my mangled finger would
> disagree with you.
He'd have said the same thing. He'd have shown it to all his
buddies, too!
>
>
>>As an example: one paper I've mentioned before pointed out, based on
>>survey data, that League of American Bicyclist members ride an average
>>of 11 years between crashes that do a mere $50 damage. IIRC, you (or
>>some other anonymous poster with a similar handle) didn't like that
>>information either!
>
>
> Actually I had great fun with that info.
> I pointed out that if I crashed with similar
> frequency as these supposedly experienced
> and well-trained Gandolfs of cycling, I would already have suffered more than
> SEVEN "serious
> accidents" (by the parameters of the study) in
> my short career.
.... if you call $50 damage "serious."
I was present for a perfectly similar accident. Club ride, passing
slowly through a little village with narrow streets. One guy's front
wheel dropped off the pavement edge. Of course, there's the usual
"can't steer to balance" problem, and he came off the bike. Not even a
complete fall - he ended up standing - but his front wheel was tacoed.
Using a tree, I popped it back into rideable shape, but being a careful
sort, he soon replaced it.
Serious? In my book, it was probably a waste of money.
And I wondered what is
> responsible for their poor safety rating?
> Perhaps a myopic reliance on the Vehicular
> Cycling Principle.
<sigh> I've never seen a consise statement of your alternative
principle. Possibly "Be afraid. Be very afraid" ?
No thanks.
--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
