Re: published helmet research - not troll

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Frank Krygowski, Jun 16, 2004.

  1. patrick wrote:

    > I know, I know. this has been hashed to hell and back,
    > but I figured some of you might actually want to read
    > real research.


    There has been plenty of "real research" cited on this topic.

    For example, you might visit http://www.cyclehelmets.org and track down
    some of the cited articles. Regarding the effect of helmet use on
    fatalities, you can visit http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1012 and
    see citations at the page bottom.

    Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
    http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/ with it's "Helmet FAQ." There are lots of
    citations listed there, too.

    Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
    you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
    www.bhsi.org This "institute" (named Randy Swart) is working to make
    it illegal for anyone of any age to ride a bike at any time without a
    helmet. I quote: "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute supports
    carefully drawn mandatory helmet laws covering all age groups."

    Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
    scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets. In
    general, we seem to have the public (under the influence of heavy
    promotion) believing that helmets are a godsend. Meanwhile, competent
    statisticians who examine the actual data are much, much more skeptical
    of both the supposed benefit, and the supposed need.

    --
    --------------------+
    Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
    replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
     
    Tags:


  2. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:


    > Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
    > http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/ with it's "Helmet FAQ." There are lots
    > of citations listed there, too.


    This site (at least, the so-called "Helmet FAQ") was created by a rabid
    anti-helmet person who would spew continued personal abuse at anyone
    who disagreed with him in the slightest. You should note Krygowski's
    tactics. He posts a link to Randy's site for "balance" but immediately
    disparages it.

    > Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
    > you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
    > www.bhsi.org This "institute" (named Randy Swart) is working to
    > make it illegal for anyone of any age to ride a bike at any time
    > without a helmet. I quote: "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute
    > supports carefully drawn mandatory helmet laws covering all age
    > groups."


    Randy's site is not "rabid," even if you don't agree with everything
    he says (or anything he says, for that matter.)

    Bill

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  3. Mitch Haley

    Mitch Haley Guest

    Frank Krygowski wrote:
    > In general, we seem to have the public (under the influence of heavy
    > promotion) believing that helmets are a godsend. Meanwhile, competent
    > statisticians who examine the actual data are much, much more skeptical
    > of both the supposed benefit, and the supposed need.


    I read in my local paper (The Lansing State Journal) that riding without
    a helmet makes you 14 times more likely to get killed. That claim exceeds
    any made by Swart. Imagine a helmet that is 100% effective in preventing
    brain injury. This 14x claim would still require that 93% of all fatal
    crashes involve fatal brain injury with no other mortal wounds.
    Gannett News printed the claim as if it were an established fact.

    Mitch.
     
  4. Matt O'Toole

    Matt O'Toole Guest

    "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > patrick wrote:
    >
    > > I know, I know. this has been hashed to hell and back,
    > > but I figured some of you might actually want to read
    > > real research.

    >
    > There has been plenty of "real research" cited on this topic.
    >
    > For example, you might visit http://www.cyclehelmets.org and track down
    > some of the cited articles. Regarding the effect of helmet use on
    > fatalities, you can visit http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1012 and
    > see citations at the page bottom.
    >
    > Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
    > http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/ with it's "Helmet FAQ." There are lots of
    > citations listed there, too.
    >
    > Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
    > you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
    > www.bhsi.org This "institute" (named Randy Swart) is working to make
    > it illegal for anyone of any age to ride a bike at any time without a
    > helmet. I quote: "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute supports
    > carefully drawn mandatory helmet laws covering all age groups."
    >
    > Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
    > scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets. In
    > general, we seem to have the public (under the influence of heavy
    > promotion) believing that helmets are a godsend. Meanwhile, competent
    > statisticians who examine the actual data are much, much more skeptical
    > of both the supposed benefit, and the supposed need.
    >
    > --
    > --------------------+
    > Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
    > replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
    >
     
  5. Matt O'Toole

    Matt O'Toole Guest

    Frank Krygowski wrote:

    > Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
    > scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets.


    What makes it so serious, compared to other discussions? Letters after people's
    names? Big egos? Feeding frenzy at the hog trough of research dollars?
    Self-importance typically associated with these things? Or is it earnest
    effort, for once!

    > In
    > general, we seem to have the public (under the influence of heavy
    > promotion) believing that helmets are a godsend. Meanwhile, competent
    > statisticians who examine the actual data are much, much more
    > skeptical of both the supposed benefit, and the supposed need.


    Ah, but there's no money to be made in telling people they don't need helmets!
    And no political points gained from being "anti-safety."

    Matt O.
     
  6. Matt O'Toole wrote:

    > Frank Krygowski wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
    >>scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets.

    >
    >
    > What makes it so serious, compared to other discussions? Letters after people's
    > names? Big egos? Feeding frenzy at the hog trough of research dollars?
    > Self-importance typically associated with these things? Or is it earnest
    > effort, for once!


    Maybe "serious" doesn't describe it well enough.

    When you log onto the web sites for some of these journals, you can find
    discussions between the original authors and other knowledgeable
    scientists who discuss their work.

    A recent paper out of Scotland reached some very pro-helmet conclusions,
    for example; but correspondents were able to point out errors in
    computation that invalidated its results. That was interesting, because
    it pitted two (or more) statistics experts against each other, with one
    emerging a clear loser.

    The discussions take place at a much higher level than the typical
    wreck.bike discussions (if you can believe such a thing!) For example,
    no time is wasted on tales like "My buddy ran into a swarm of
    butterflies, and I _know_ his helmet saved his life!!!!" ;-)
    It all tends to be very scientific, very mathematical.

    --
    Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
    Substitute cc dot ysu dot
    edu]
     
  7. Frank Krygowski wrote:

    > The discussions take place at a much higher level than the typical
    > wreck.bike discussions (if you can believe such a thing!) For example,
    > no time is wasted on tales like "My buddy ran into a swarm of
    > butterflies, and I _know_ his helmet saved his life!!!!" ;-) It all
    > tends to be very scientific, very mathematical.


    Uh oh. I'm afraid you may have just woken up the Anti-Science Beast. Or
    perhaps I should say "drawn the attention of" -- the Beast never sleeps.

    --
    Benjamin Lewis

    Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
    The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
    -- Ambrose Bierce
     
  8. Tim McNamara

    Tim McNamara Guest

    [email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:

    > You should note Krygowski's tactics.


    Yours are exactly the same tactics. Hmmm.
     
  9. On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:48:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
    <[email protected]> wrote in message <[email protected]>:

    >Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
    >you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
    >www.bhsi.org This "institute" (named Randy Swart) is working to make
    >it illegal for anyone of any age to ride a bike at any time without a
    >helmet. I quote: "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute supports
    >carefully drawn mandatory helmet laws covering all age groups."


    And Randyt thinks that stopping using the Thompson, Rivara and
    Thompson figure of 85% efficacy would be "unhelpful" despite it's
    being derived by comparing entirely different populations and
    ascribing all the difference to helmet use. In other words, he is a
    True Believer :)

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

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  10. On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 06:09:37 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
    wrote in message <[email protected]>:

    > He posts a link to Randy's site for "balance" but immediately
    >disparages it.


    No need - Randy does his own auto-disparaging.

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

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  11. On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:37:51 -0400, Mitch Haley <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >I read in my local paper (The Lansing State Journal) that riding without
    >a helmet makes you 14 times more likely to get killed.


    Assuming that's true, what does that matter if the odds of being
    killed are extremely small.?

    JT
     
  12. Jim Flom

    Jim Flom Guest

    "John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote...
    >
    > Assuming that's true, what does that matter if the odds of being
    > killed are extremely small.?


    I have a hard time believing you don't wear a helmet, John Forrest.

    Jim "academically speaking" Flom
     
  13. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:

    > [email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
    >
    > > You should note Krygowski's tactics.

    >
    > Yours are exactly the same tactics. Hmmm.


    Liar.

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  14. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

    > On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 06:09:37 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
    > wrote in message <[email protected]>:
    >
    > > He posts a link to Randy's site for "balance" but immediately
    > >disparages it.

    >
    > No need - Randy does his own auto-disparaging.
    >


    Randy is no more biased than Avery (who did the one Frank liked.)
    But note the assymetrical treatment in Frank's post.

    Bill

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  15. Tim McNamara

    Tim McNamara Guest

  16. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:

    > [email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
    >
    > > Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:
    > >
    > >> [email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
    > >>
    > >> > You should note Krygowski's tactics.
    > >>
    > >> Yours are exactly the same tactics. Hmmm.

    > >
    > > Liar.

    >
    > Read your own post.


    I know damn well what I posted and you are lying.


    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  17. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
    > > Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
    > > http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/ with it's "Helmet FAQ." There are lots
    > > of citations listed there, too.

    >
    > This site (at least, the so-called "Helmet FAQ") was created by a rabid
    > anti-helmet person who would spew continued personal abuse at anyone
    > who disagreed with him in the slightest. You should note Krygowski's
    > tactics. He posts a link to Randy's site for "balance" but immediately
    > disparages it.
    >
    > > Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
    > > you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
    > > www.bhsi.org This "institute" (named Randy Swart) is working to
    > > make it illegal for anyone of any age to ride a bike at any time
    > > without a helmet. I quote: "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute
    > > supports carefully drawn mandatory helmet laws covering all age
    > > groups."

    >
    > Randy's site is not "rabid," even if you don't agree with everything
    > he says (or anything he says, for that matter.)


    Sorry, but your opinion has no more weight than Frank's and at least Frank
    is willing to discuss matters. Randy is not.
     
  18. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    > > On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 06:09:37 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
    > > wrote in message <[email protected]>:
    > >
    > > > He posts a link to Randy's site for "balance" but immediately
    > > >disparages it.

    > >
    > > No need - Randy does his own auto-disparaging.

    >
    > Randy is no more biased than Avery (who did the one Frank liked.)
    > But note the assymetrical treatment in Frank's post.


    Zauman, you haven't changed in 12 years. Randy's site is even set up so that
    you can't find the anti-helmet information but he puts it there in hard to
    find locations so that he can say that it's really there. Avery doesn't like
    helmet laws and is up front about it.
     
  19. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Jim Flom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote...
    > >
    > > Assuming that's true, what does that matter if the odds of being
    > > killed are extremely small.?

    >
    > I have a hard time believing you don't wear a helmet, John Forrest.
    >
    > Jim "academically speaking" Flom


    Yeah but after he read about Lance's health problem he's been sitting on it.
     
  20. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

    > "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]


    > >
    > > Randy's site is not "rabid," even if you don't agree with everything
    > > he says (or anything he says, for that matter.)

    >
    > Sorry, but your opinion has no more weight than Frank's and at least Frank
    > is willing to discuss matters. Randy is not.


    Randy has no duty to participate in usenet discussions.

    Bill

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
Loading...
Loading...