|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Franki-boy Krygowski is still (!) confounded
On Aug 31, 12:06*am, Frank Krygowski wrote to
MikeWhy: However, despite the claims and implications you and Jute continue to make I'm just laying on the table the straight facts from an official compilation by the authorities in New York covering the eight years 1996 to 2003 of all the deaths (225) and serious injuries (3,462) in cycling accidents in all New York City. The purpose of the study was an overview usable for city development planning, not helmet advocacy, so your particular obsession of helmet usage was only noted for part of the period among the seriously injured, amounting to 333 cases. Here are some summary numbers from the study: • Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury (same as in every other study, no surprise). • Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet. • Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal crashes Source: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf Clearly, helmets were effective life-savers in 9.62% or approximately 33 cases, and a larger lifesaving can reasonably be projected to New York and the nation in the presence of mandatory helmet legislation and enforcement. In real life, unlike in your favorite study, confounding factors do apparently matter. Competent and unbiased statisticians know this, and have written about it extensively - for those who are actually willing to read. I do love the sneer of "for those who are actually willing to read". Yo, Krygowski, you sad statistical illiterate, those "competent and unbiased statisticians" musta been abducted by you and tortured by repeated retellings of your life story until they would confess to pedophilia, never mind contort statistics, because any competent statistician will tell you that a full universe compilation of 3687 actual incidents over a period of eight years is not a sample, it is a portrait, and it is definitely not confounded: All those 225 fatalities are dead, all the 3462 seriously injured cyclists are seriously injured, whatever you say now. And it is guaranteed that of the 225 fatalities only 3% wore helmets and of the 333 seriously injured cyclists for whom helmet wear was noted, 13% wore helmets, conclusion obvious: helmets save lives. Those are the facts, regardless of whether you like them or not. The only one confounded, confused and constipated here, is you, Franki- boy Krygowski. The only people here who are ignorant enough to want to adjust a full universe compilation with a sample size so vastly over 3000 (go read up the meaning of the 3000 and amaze yourself) are you, Franki Shavelegs, and the permanent RBT moron McNamara. Hope this helps clear up the matter for you. I must admit that, like Mike, I'm running out of patience with your obtuseness and inability to learn anything at all. Andre Jute Pass me up a brick to knock Krygowski's brains into gear |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Immaturity in adult conversations
On Aug 30, 9:08*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
Pass me up a brick to knock Krygowski's brains into gear Andre, some fourth grader has gotten control of your computer. Or perhaps your mind. I suspect the latter. Restrain him, would you? He's really obnoxious. - Frank Krygowski |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Anti-helmet zealot admits he has no answer to New York cyclingaccident study
Poor Frank Krygowski. He has no answer to the New York compilation of
cyclist fatalities and serious injuries over an eight year period, suggesting very strongly what we all know, that helmets save lives. Krygowski cut my explanation of the New York numbers in total and substituted this juvenile silliness: Andre, some fourth grader has gotten control of your computer. *Or perhaps your mind. *I suspect the latter. Restrain him, would you? *He's really obnoxious. - Frank Krygowski Here is what Krygowski cut restored: *** On Aug 31, 12:06*am, Frank Krygowski wrote to MikeWhy: However, despite the claims and implications you and Jute continue to make I'm just laying on the table the straight facts from an official compilation by the authorities in New York covering the eight years 1996 to 2003 of all the deaths (225) and serious injuries (3,462) in cycling accidents in all New York City. The purpose of the study was an overview usable for city development planning, not helmet advocacy, so your particular obsession of helmet usage was only noted for part of the period among the seriously injured, amounting to 333 cases. Here are some summary numbers from the study: • Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury (same as in every other study, no surprise). • Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet. • Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal crashes Source: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf Clearly, helmets were effective life-savers in 9.62% or approximately 33 cases, and a larger lifesaving can reasonably be projected to New York and the nation in the presence of mandatory helmet legislation and enforcement. In real life, unlike in your favorite study, confounding factors do apparently matter. Competent and unbiased statisticians know this, and have written about it extensively - for those who are actually willing to read. I do love the sneer of "for those who are actually willing to read". Yo, Krygowski, you sad statistical illiterate, those "competent and unbiased statisticians" musta been abducted by you and tortured by repeated retellings of your life story until they would confess to pedophilia, never mind contort statistics, because any competent statistician will tell you that a full universe compilation of 3687 actual incidents over a period of eight years is not a sample, it is a portrait, and it is definitely not confounded: All those 225 fatalities are dead, all the 3462 seriously injured cyclists are seriously injured, whatever you say now. And it is guaranteed that of the 225 fatalities only 3% wore helmets and of the 333 seriously injured cyclists for whom helmet wear was noted, 13% wore helmets, conclusion obvious: helmets save lives. Those are the facts, regardless of whether you like them or not. The only one confounded, confused and constipated here, is you, Franki- boy Krygowski. The only people here who are ignorant enough to want to adjust a full universe compilation with a sample size so vastly over 3000 (go read up the meaning of the 3000 and amaze yourself) are you, Franki Shavelegs, and the permanent RBT moron McNamara. Hope this helps clear up the matter for you. I must admit that, like Mike, I'm running out of patience with your obtuseness and inability to learn anything at all. Andre Jute Pass me up a brick to knock Krygowski's brains into gear *** |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Franki-boy Krygowski is still (!) confounded
This probably blew his mind:
http://www.engrish.com//wp-content/u...ing-helmet.jpg Bill "and some say the claims are exaggerated" S. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
For Frank Krygowski | [email protected] | Techniques | 0 | January 18th 10 01:05 AM |
For Frank Krygowski | [email protected] | Techniques | 21 | November 12th 09 05:57 AM |
A Cub Reporter’s Casebook of Unimportant Interviews: Franki Krygowski's legs | Andre Jute[_2_] | Techniques | 12 | September 9th 08 01:28 AM |