A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The straight gen about bicycle helmets



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 27th 10, 05:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.racing,rec.bicycles.rides
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default The straight gen about bicycle helmets

On Aug 27, 4:37*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

"Fatalities in New York City in a few years" doesn't really qualify.
Bike fatalities are damned rare - only 750 per year in the entire US -
so the number in any one city is tiny. *To get a handle on chaos, you
need hundreds, perhaps thousands of data points.

- Frank Krygowski


Countering Frank Krygowski's lies can consume one's life, so most of
us have just stopped bothering. But this example is too gross to let
pass.

Actually, Franki-boy, the New York study was of 225 cyclist
fatalities, of which only 3% wore helmets, and another 333 cyclists
seriously injured, of which 13% wore helmets. That is a total of 558
cases in whose data it is strongly suggested that wearing a helmet
gives a cyclist a 433% greater chance of surviving even a serious
accident.

Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf

Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free and on my bike since 1992
Greener than thou!
Ads
  #2  
Old August 27th 10, 07:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.racing,rec.bicycles.rides
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default The straight gen about bicycle helmets

On Aug 27, 12:56*pm, Andre Jute wrote:


Actually, Franki-boy...


Jute, some fourth grader has slipped into your computer room. Or
perhaps your mind. Restrain him, would you?

the New York study was of 225 cyclist
fatalities, of which only 3% wore helmets, and another 333 cyclists
seriously injured, of which 13% wore helmets. That is a total of 558
cases in whose data it is strongly suggested that wearing a helmet
gives a cyclist a 433% greater chance of surviving even a serious
accident.


In essence, you claim that since 74% of cyclist deaths "involved head
injuries" and few cyclists who died wore helmets, the helmets are
proven to save lives.

Yet in Harruff, R. C. et. al., "Analysis of Circumstances and Injuries
in 217 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities," Accid. Analysis & Prevention,
Vol 30, No 1, pp. 11-20, 1998, it's seen that 73% of pedestrian
fatalities also involved head injuries.

Furthermore, in contrast to the New York "study" and the Thompson &
Rivara "85% benefit" paper, the injuries Harruff counted as head
injuries were actually serious. T&R literally counted things such as
ear scratches as "head injuries." The New York study may have done
the same. Harruff, etc. counted only truly serious things as head
injuries: skull fractures, subdural hematomas and contusions and
lacerations of the brain itself (cerebrum, brain stem, mid-brain).

So in for cyclists, 74% involve _some_ injury above the neck. In
pedestrians, 73% involve truly serious head and brain injuries.
Cycling is therefore nothing special regarding head injury. (And BTW,
I have other data showing the typical severity of head injury is
significantly greater in pedestrians than in bicyclists.)

Now let's compare the risk of fatality between peds and cyclists. You
claim this New York paper is a large study because it involves 225
cyclists. But how odd that nobody is looking harder at the
pedestrians! After all, the paper says cyclists are only 6% of New
York's traffic fatalities; pedestrians are 49%! That works out to
over 1800 lives potentially saved, if we could just do something about
all those pedestrians!

Of course, this is similar to national data. In a given year in the
US, there are roughly 750 bicycle fatalities. There are typically
about 4000 pedestrian fatalities. Now, in a country the size of the
US, 750 fatalities is a large number only if you're a confirmed hand-
wringer. That's usually fairly similar to the number killed by the
accidental inhalation of poison gases. (Hear much about that
problem? I thought not.) In Canada, in most years, more people die
by falling out of bed than by crashing bicycles. By any rational
comparison, cycling fatalities are relatively rare.

And as we've mentioned, the risk per mile traveled has been computed.
Turns out walking a mile in the US is over three times as dangerous as
cycling a mile. And again, the main trauma danger for pedestrians is
head injury (as with most modes of accidental death). Why would
anyone portray cycling as unusually dangerous?

Finally, Jute, you've wound on and on about the fact that of the New
York cyclist fatalities whose helmet use was known, only 3% wore
them. But several of us have noted apparent bias in observation. For
example, in the very few cycling fatalities in my metro area, I've
noted that the newspaper reports have included "he was not wearing a
bike helmet" when that was known to be true; but they omitted the
phrase "both mother and daughter were wearing bike helmets when
killed" in the incident for which that was true. Furthermore, Riley
Geary of the Institute for Traffic Safety Analysis has reported
similar discrepancies in official data regarding helmet use in injured
cyclists. His explanation was more detailed, and involved largely
treatment of the "unknown" cases, the design and processing of report
forms, etc. Still, he clearly showed bias occurred in the reporting
an analysis system.

No matter. Since I'm sure you'll discount that, let's go beyond it.
Let's assume that it's true that for the fatally injured cyclists
where helmet use was "known" (and admitted), that 97% wore no helmets.

Fine. The parallel figure for pedestrians is 100%.

Over 1800 pedestrians in the time of the study were killed, compared
ot only 225 cyclists. For both pedestrians and cyclists, roughly 74%
of the fatalities "involved" head injuries. Pedestrian head injuries
tend to be worse than cyclist head injuries. And yet 100% of
pedestrians refuse to wear a helmet - and nobody seems to care!

Personally, I'm never going to call for helmet use by pedestrians -
although others have done that, with total seriousness. I think the
helmet nannies such as yourself are already way too deep into total
nonsense.

I will, however, point out that if you, Jute, are going to continue to
promote bike helmets based on this simplistic New York paper, you need
to promote pedestrian helmets at least as obnoxiously.

- Frank Krygowski
  #3  
Old August 28th 10, 12:30 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.racing,rec.bicycles.rides
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default The straight gen about bicycle helmets

On Aug 27, 7:57*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 27, 12:56*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

*the New York study was of 225 cyclist
fatalities, of which only 3% wore helmets, and another 333 cyclists
seriously injured, of which 13% wore helmets. That is a total of 558
cases in whose data it is strongly suggested that wearing a helmet
gives a cyclist a 433% greater chance of surviving even a serious
accident.


In essence, you claim that since 74% of cyclist deaths "involved head
injuries" and few cyclists who died wore helmets, the helmets are
proven to save lives.


No, that isn't what I said. Read the comparison I made again. Don't
try to put words into my mouth; it is a childish debating trick.

Yet in Harruff, R. C. et. al., "Analysis of Circumstances and Injuries
in 217 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities," Accid. Analysis & Prevention,
Vol 30, No 1, pp. 11-20, 1998, it's seen that 73% of pedestrian
fatalities also involved head injuries.


So what?

Furthermore, in contrast to the New York "study"


What are those quotation marks intended to imply? The New York study
is a compilation of an entire large universe over a period of eight
years but you, Frank Krygowski, want to sneer at it without ever
arguing it's numbers? I don't think so, sonny.

and the Thompson &
Rivara "85% benefit" paper,


More sneering quotation marks around a study that I never once quoted.
I've already called Krygowski on his attempted lie in trying to tie me
to Thompson & Rivara. *I* made no 85% claim, Krygowski, so stick your
insinuations up your arse.

the injuries Harruff counted as head
injuries were actually serious. *T&R literally counted things such as
ear scratches as "head injuries." *


Here we go with Krygowski's smear tactics again.

The New York study may have done
the same. *


Crap. Prove it. The New York study at
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf
dealt with serious injuries. Your scare and smear tactics don't work
here, Krygowski.

Harruff, etc. counted only truly serious things as head
injuries: skull fractures, subdural hematomas and contusions and
lacerations of the brain itself (cerebrum, brain stem, mid-brain).


Good for them. But what has it to do with the New York study?

So in for cyclists, 74% involve _some_ injury above the neck. *In
pedestrians, 73% involve truly serious head and brain injuries.
Cycling is therefore nothing special regarding head injury. *(And BTW,
I have other data showing the typical severity of head injury is
significantly greater in pedestrians than in bicyclists.)


Once more, so what? What does all this smoke have to do with cyclists?

Now let's compare the risk of fatality between peds and cyclists. *You
claim this New York paper is a large study because it involves 225
cyclists. *But how odd that nobody is looking harder at the
pedestrians! *After all, the paper says cyclists are only 6% of New
York's traffic fatalities; pedestrians are 49%! * That works out to
over 1800 lives potentially saved, if we could just do something about
all those pedestrians!


More smoke. We're concerned with cyclists, not pedestrians. It is no
excuse not to save cyclists from death that we aren't first saving
pedestrians or elephants or water voles in Louisiana or hedgehogs in
my lanes.

Of course, this is similar to national data. *In a given year in the
US, there are roughly 750 bicycle fatalities. *There are typically
about 4000 pedestrian fatalities. *


Krygowski's smoke bellows are working overtime now!

YO, KRYGO, WHAT ABOUT THE CYCLISTS BEING KILLED WHO COULD BE SAVED
WHILE YOU WAFFLE ON ABOUT PEDESTRIANS YOU DON'T WANT TO SAVE EITHER?

Now, in a country the size of the
US, 750 fatalities is a large number only if you're a confirmed hand-
wringer. *


It is one thing to be sanguine about unavoidable deaths, it is quite
another to set yourself up as an anti-helmet advocate and thereby
murder cyclists who could be alive if they wore a helmet. In that case
even one dead cyclist who needn't be is enough to condemn your soul
forever, Krygowski.

That's usually fairly similar to the number killed by the
accidental inhalation of poison gases. *(Hear much about that
problem? *


More poor quality smoke, called equivalence, the argument of a weak
mind.

I thought not.) *In Canada, in most years, more people die
by falling out of bed than by crashing bicycles. *By any rational
comparison, cycling fatalities are relatively rare.


More equivalence.

And as we've mentioned, the risk per mile traveled has been computed.
Turns out walking a mile in the US is over three times as dangerous as
cycling a mile. *


So what? That parachuting is more dangerous than cycling is no reason
for us as cyclists concerned with cyclists to run out and concentrate
on parachutists to the detriment of cyclists. You're blowing smoke
through your ass, Krygowski.

And again, the main trauma danger for pedestrians is
head injury (as with most modes of accidental death). *Why would
anyone portray cycling as unusually dangerous?


Hey, Krygowski, I'm the one who had to prove to you that cycling is
even safer than you thought, remember, because you did the math so
incompetently. Why are you trying to distract us with dumb claims that
someone is saying cycling is "unusually dangerous" when we all know no
one here is saying so? Or do you just lie from habit?

It doesn't matter precisely how dangerous cycling is, if we carelessly
permit 70 or more cyclists to die every year, that is 70 too many.
Your callousness is amazing, Krygowski. What do you think you are, a
Russian general sending his infantry to clear a minefield by walking
across it?

Next Krygowski returns to trying to smear the New York study with
vague mutterings and conspiracy theories. First I'll let you read the
whole paragraphs so you can see how he does it by juxtaposition, then
I'll deconstruct Krygowski's poor quality crap:

Finally, Jute, you've wound on and on about the fact that of the New
York cyclist fatalities whose helmet use was known, only 3% wore
them. *But several of us have noted apparent bias in observation. *For
example, in the very few cycling fatalities in my metro area, I've
noted that the newspaper reports have included "he was not wearing a
bike helmet" when that was known to be true; but they omitted the
phrase "both mother and daughter were wearing bike helmets when
killed" in the incident for which that was true. *Furthermore, Riley
Geary of the Institute for Traffic Safety Analysis has reported
similar discrepancies in official data regarding helmet use in injured
cyclists. *His explanation was more detailed, and involved largely
treatment of the "unknown" cases, the design and processing of report
forms, etc. *Still, he clearly showed bias occurred in the reporting
an analysis system.

No matter. *Since I'm sure you'll discount that, let's go beyond it.


Holy ****! This crap of Krygowski's is an insult to every cyclist.
Let's see it sentence by sentence:

Finally, Jute, you've wound on and on about the fact that of the New
York cyclist fatalities whose helmet use was known, only 3% wore
them.


Krygowski lies by omission. What I've noted again and again is the
significant discrepancy between only 3% of the fatalities in the New
York study wearing helmets and 13% of those surviving but seriously
injured wearing helmets. The implication is that not wearing a helmet
may be seriously detrimental to a cyclist's health by around 433%.
This is the killer statistic that Krygowski must somehow undermine if
he is not to look stupid. Let's see how stupid he looks when he
botches the job:

*But several of us have noted apparent bias in observation. *


Unspecified. If you can prove bias in the New York study, why haven't
you, Krygowski?

For
example, in the very few cycling fatalities in my metro area, I've
noted that the newspaper reports have included "he was not wearing a
bike helmet" when that was known to be true; but they omitted the
phrase "both mother and daughter were wearing bike helmets when
killed" in the incident for which that was true.


The New York study didn't count newspaper crap, they counted police
reports and medical reports of all the incidents in which cyclists
died or were seriously injured in New York over a period of eight
years. Krygowski is blowing poor quality smoke. Again.

*Furthermore, Riley
Geary of the Institute for Traffic Safety Analysis has reported
similar discrepancies in official data regarding helmet use in injured
cyclists. *


Has he really? WTF does this have to do with the New York study? What
do you want, Krygowski, a notarized statement from the Mayor of New
York that his Police, Health and Transport Commissioners not only
weren't conspiring against you but never heard of you?

His explanation was more detailed, and involved largely
treatment of the "unknown" cases, the design and processing of report
forms, etc. *Still, he clearly showed bias occurred in the reporting
an analysis system.


Wow. You really are a statistical moron, Krygowski. It is widely
known, and even statistical tenth-raters like you should make it their
business to discover this before they risk lives by claiming that
helmets don't matter, that the larger the study, the more small
difficulties even out; that is one of the fundamental essences of
statistics, and the main reason for preferring large studies to small.
The exemplary New York study is of nearly 4000 serious cycling
accidents, a full universe over eight years. What you are in effect
claiming is that tens of thousands of policemen and medical staff all
conspired in a pro-helmet manner. You're wanking, Krygowski.

No matter. *Since I'm sure you'll discount that, let's go beyond it.


Not only do I discount that waffle, I reject it contemptuously as the
desperate and hysterical smoke of a man who knows he has lost the
argument, and now descends to immoral smear tactics.

Let's assume that it's true that for the fatally injured cyclists
where helmet use was "known" (and admitted), that 97% wore no helmets.


Here we go with those perjorative post-modern, morally relativistic
quotation marks again. Once more Krygowski tries for a smear. Once
more such tactics only highlight how desperately and hysterically
Krygowski needs to undermine the New York study to have even a few
shreds of his anti-helmet case left.

Fine. *The parallel figure for pedestrians is 100%.


Okay, so now Krygowski agrees 97% of the New York fatalitites did not
wear a helmet. Now he'll go on to claim we should have saved the
pedestrians first rather than try to improve the lot of cyclists.

Over 1800 pedestrians in the time of the study were killed, compared
ot only 225 cyclists. *


Those "only" (Krygowski's sneer, not mine) 225 dead cyclists include
every dead cyclist in New York in eight years. That's a full universe.
It tells us what we need to know about cycling fatalities. The number
of pedestrians who died in the same period is irrelevant to the
implications of the New York study.

For both pedestrians and cyclists, roughly 74%
of the fatalities "involved" head injuries. *Pedestrian head injuries
tend to be worse than cyclist head injuries. *And yet 100% of
pedestrians refuse to wear a helmet - and nobody seems to care!


So what? What's your point with all these iterative irrelevances,
Krygowski. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SAVING THE LIVES OF CYCLISTS. NOT
PEDESTRIANS, NOT PARACHUTISTS, NOT ELEPHPANTS, NOT VOLES, NOT
HEDGEHOGS. CYCLISTS!

Personally, I'm never going to call for helmet use by pedestrians -


Another straw man. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CYCLISTS, KRYGOWSKI.

although others have done that, with total seriousness. *I think the
helmet nannies such as yourself are already way too deep into total
nonsense.


"Helmet nannies such as yourself", eh? Prove that I have ever told
anyone (except my own son when he was small) to wear a helmet, or
advocated helmet use, or called for a mandatory helmet law. You're
lying again, Krygowski, trying to put words in my mouth that I didn't
speak. ALL I'm doing is putting honest numbers on the table to stop
the anti-helmet zealots like you, Frank Krygowski, lying about the
facts.

I will, however, point out that if you, Jute, are going to continue to
promote bike helmets


Wow, now Krygowski's lies have become axiomatic! Even the Pope doesn't
claim such infallibility. Nope, Krygo, I'm not promoting bike helmets,
I'm just promoting honest statistics, clearly a concept totally alien
to your obsessive hatred of helmets and helmet-wearers. I wouldn't
even be in this discussion if I hadn't first seen you lying your head
off about the statistics I in good faith provided you with.

based on this simplistic New York paper,


This unbelievably ignorant statement of Krygowski's reminds me of a
clown I knew at one of my colleges who claimed that without footnotes
no paper could be an academic paper, it was the footnotes that made it
an academic paper. Yo, Krygowski, you poor statistical illiterate,
what makes a statistical study good is not, repeat after me NOT, all
kinds of adjusments; those are just required to compensate for
inadequate size; they are the mark of an inadequately conceived and
funded study. What makes a statistical study good is size, obviating
the need for adjustments which inevitably introduce the bias of the
adjusters. The New York study appears "simplistic" to morons like you
because you have no grasp of statistics, so you mistake the tinkering
of little men on little studies for the essence. The New York study
doesn't need all this because it counted the whole universe over a
more than adequately long period, and the number of people involved
are too large for bias or conspiracy. The New York study is the gold
standard exactly because no one has adjusted it to suit his
prejudices.

you need
to promote pedestrian helmets at least as obnoxiously.


Oh, I'm only obnoxious because you lie -- difficult not to be
obnoxious to someone as willfully stupid and dishonest as you
Krygowski --, and because I'm not committed to either side. My
commitment is to the purity of the numbers.

- Frank Krygowski


Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of infuriating inadequates by merely doing one's
homework

  #4  
Old August 28th 10, 04:47 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.racing,rec.bicycles.rides
Edward Dolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,212
Default The straight gen about bicycle helmets


"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
[...]

More smoke. We're concerned with cyclists, not pedestrians. It is no

excuse not to save cyclists from death that we aren't first saving
pedestrians or elephants or water voles in Louisiana or hedgehogs in
my lanes.
[...]

I would like to hear more about those hedgehogs in the lanes of sodden old
Ireland.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
not only bicycle helmets AMuzi Techniques 9 May 19th 10 04:21 AM
Equestrian helmets as bicycle helmets? [email protected][_2_] General 19 December 27th 09 03:56 AM
Evidence that bicycle helmets deteriorate with age? [email protected] Techniques 49 May 24th 09 07:19 AM
Large Bicycle Helmets Brian Millson UK 1 August 15th 05 07:33 PM
Large bicycle helmets Michael Australia 6 October 18th 03 11:25 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.