|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#661
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:54:00 -0800, SMS
said in : 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 |
Ads |
#662
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:54:00 -0800, SMS said in : 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 |
#663
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
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. |
#664
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
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. |
#665
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
SMS wrote: 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. There is no such thing. Effectiveness is a construct derived from analysis. The raw data is: Number of people counted cycling (with associated count methodology details). Number of Head injuries and severity Numbers of other injuries. Now, you can take self selected subsets of that group, you can take the whole group and you can ignore it all together, but you get no information on effectiveness of any one parameter unless you do some analysis on that data and that requires methodology. The quality of that methodology is what is being discussed. You have done nothing but bluster and hand wave. Would you care to describe how the collected data can be used in a robust methodology to give us a measure of helmet effectiveness? Or will you just carp, abnd bluster adn stick your fingers in your ears and say 'nyah, can't hear you' when someone asks you to stop prevaricatign and actually put up. ...d |
#666
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
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 |
#667
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
|
#668
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
"SMS" wrote in message
... 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 |
#669
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
|
#670
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gobsmacked | wafflycat | UK | 63 | January 4th 06 06:50 PM |
water bottles,helmets | Mark | General | 191 | July 17th 05 04:05 PM |
Rec.Bicycles Frequently Asked Questions Posting Part 1/5 | Mike Iglesias | General | 4 | October 29th 04 07:11 AM |
Five cyclists cleared | Marty Wallace | Australia | 2 | July 3rd 04 11:15 PM |
MP wants cyclists banned-Morn. Pen. | rickster | Australia | 10 | June 1st 04 01:22 AM |