|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1001
|
|||
|
|||
Steven M. Scharf wrote:
Erik Freitag wrote: Must be nice to live in such a simple world. You'd have to ask Frank about that. Hence the fantastic tales of helmet inefficacy. Clearly, you have not been paying attention. Huh? All the ER studies that have looked at injuries incurred by helmet wearers versus non-helmet wearers prove a huge difference. Or rather, "All the ER studies that Scharf has googled so far - never mind the rest." And for a person whose thinking is very simple, there's nothing more to consider. More sophisticated people - such as professional statisticians familiar with such studies - have noted that every "ER study" that's found benefit has had OTHER very significant differences between the helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists. For example, the most oft-quoted study (T&R, 1989) had non-helmeted cyclists who were much more likely to have lower incomes, had fallen on hard surfaces rather than soft, had been more likely to be hit by cars, had been riding on streets instead of bike paths, etc. Furthermore, in that study, the percentage of cyclists presenting to the ER wearing helmets was much higher than the street percentages of helmeted cyclists. IOW, people wearing helmets were _more_ likely to go to the ER! Whether this was because the richer folks in helmets went to the ER "just to be sure," or whether it was because the people in helmets took more risks, it's hard to say. But again: for people who live in very simple worlds, all this matters little. Those folks tend to grab the first number they find in Google, ignore any information they don't like, and confidently declare that they know more than anyone else. Ignorance and hubris. Bookends for a closed mind. -- Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com. Substitute cc dot ysu dot edu] |
Ads |
#1002
|
|||
|
|||
R15757 wrote:
Frank K wrote: :-) Ah, I see. It seems to _you_ that commuting would be no more than one billion hours. And it seems to _you_ that all kids and all recreational riding would total another billion hours. That's what it seems to _you_. Yes, that's what it seems to _me_. Is anyone else impressed with that information source? ;-) And you say "To me, your numbers appear to be based on JACK SQUAT." Of course, some readers may be confused about how "It seems to YOU" differs from "based on JACK SQUAT." Yeah, especially if they possess Krygowski-like reading comprehension skills. As I wrote, my "numbers" (I didn't really give any)... That says volumes, Robert. Right now you are claiming 72 million Americans ride 40 hours per year. What I am _actually_ doing is quoting the data that the National Safety Council posts on its web page. They determine participation in sports and activities by referring to national surveys, among other things. They determine fatalities from the national Fatal Accident Reporting System. They determine ER visits from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System. These are the best numbers available in this country. And the numbers they come up with are closely matched by similar agencies in other countries who use different tactics. Once again, this data indicates that the number of ER visits due to bicycling are only a little higher than the number due to beds and bedclothes. The data indicates that cycling causes far fewer ER visits per hour than common, low risk activities, and that the risk of fatality is even lower. In other words, although you may hate to hear it, cycling is really very safe! I understand that your prejudice makes you detest this data. But at this point, I'd say it's up to YOU to prove that the data collected by these national experts - and by experts in other countires - is faulty. So stop with the desparate protestation, Robert. And stop trying to get _me_ to prove the National Safety Council's figures are wrong. If you want to show cycling is horribly dangerous, it's time _you_ came up with some real numbers - some numbers that have been accepted by someone other than a "lowly bicycle messenger," as you describe yourself. And as you poetically put it, those numbers should be based on something other than "jack squat." Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. -- Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com. Substitute cc dot ysu dot edu] |
#1003
|
|||
|
|||
"R15757" wrote in message ... Frank K wrote: :-) Ah, I see. It seems to _you_ that commuting would be no more than one billion hours. And it seems to _you_ that all kids and all recreational riding would total another billion hours. That's what it seems to _you_. Yes, that's what it seems to _me_. And that would be near the maximum it seems to _me_. 3.2 billion hours per year--Does that honestly seem like an accurate figure to _you_, given the complete lack of information on methodology provided by the mysterious Failure Analysis Associates? Please tell us why you think that is a good number. Maybe you can persuade me. .... As I wrote, my "numbers" (I didn't really give any) are based on the US population and known figures for bicycle commuters, known annual sales figures for bicycles, and the knowledge that many of these new bikes are virtually unused. Also, the fact that most figures for the number of cyclists in the country tends to range 20-50 million. This is not enough information to come up with any accurate per-hour figure, as I wrote. Let me ask you again although you will not answer the question: What are your per-hour numbers based on?? Right now you are claiming 72 million Americans ride 40 hours per year. These are the numbers necessary for you to remain consistent with your posted claims of per-hour fatality and injury numbers. Why should this seem such a grossly inflated number, when it represents an average of less than 1 hour of cycling per week on average? While I don't have any actual survey data to back up the following conjectural analysis, let me illustrate how we could easily reach or exceed a total of 3.2 billion hours of cycling per year here in the US. If we were to assume there are roughly 1 million hard-core American cyclists who manage to average 1000 hours of cycling per year (or 20 hours of cycling per week), that would represent 1.0 billion cycling hours already. While this might seem rather excessive to most non-cyclists or casual cyclists, it's a level of effort easily reached or exceeded by nearly all "serious" cyclists (racers, messengers, long-distance and/or full-time commuters, etc), and a level of effort I personally managed to reach without too much difficulty for two years running back in 1993-94. If we now assume the next 2 million US cyclists average about 400 hours per year (or a little more than an hour of cycling per day), that adds another 0.8 billion hours to the total. If we further assume the next 4 million cyclists average 150 hours per year (or just 3 hours of cycling per week), and the next 15 million cyclists average 40 hours per year, that adds another 0.6 + 0.6 billion cycling hours, bringing the total up to 3.0 billion hours for 22 million US cyclists. If we then assume the huge majority of US cyclists (the remaining 50 million) average just 10 hours per year (less than 1 hour per month), the additional 0.5 billion hours brings us to 3.5 billion hours of total cycling. While these estimates are just my own WAG's of course, the relative distribution of total cycling hours is probably a fairly decent reflection of reality--where a relatively small portion of "serious" participants manage to account for the vast majority of total activity (in this example, the top 10% of cyclists accounting for over 2/3 of all cycling hours, and probably over 80% of all cycling miles as well). Riley (the once and future Iron Tortoise) Geary |
#1004
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Frank Krygowski writes: Bill Z. wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: Not wearing a helmet _shouldn't_ have to be justified. But helmet manufacturers, and organizations funded by their donations, continually call for mandatory helmet laws. Thus, it's now regrettably necessary to justify not wearing a helmet. When was the last call for a mandatory helmet law and who made it? Such ignorance! There was one in committee in my state late last year. There are efforts in Great Britain now, IIRC. There's an effort in Ontario right ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ now, for cyclists of all ages. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ In fact that's still the subject heading (and was the original topic) of this whole thread -- "Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through" :-) cheers, Tom -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca |
#1005
|
|||
|
|||
Frank Krygowski writes:
Bill Z. wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: :-) Come on, Bill, give Eric credit. [Erik's post] was an elegant example of using Usenet to inject exactly the right timing, for perfect humorous effect. Your problem is you really don't have a sense of humor... Oh, I don't know. I certainly thought Erik's post about you was funny! I take it you disagree? Snipped the part which showed you didn't get a joke, didn't you? I wonder why. :-) -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#1006
|
|||
|
|||
Frank Krygowski writes:
Bill Z. wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: Not wearing a helmet _shouldn't_ have to be justified. But helmet manufacturers, and organizations funded by their donations, continually call for mandatory helmet laws. Thus, it's now regrettably necessary to justify not wearing a helmet. When was the last call for a mandatory helmet law and who made it? Such ignorance! There was one in committee in my state late last year. There are efforts in Great Britain now, IIRC. There's an effort in Ontario right now, for cyclists of all ages. And of course, there are organizations like Safe Kids which have stated policies favoring all-ages MHLs. Uh Huh. "Stated policies" are not serious attempts at passing a law, and a "committee" can be some number of citizens (including just one) with an axe to grind. I'll note that, after from your "such ignorance" snide remark, you lacked the integrity to answer the question. Now, why don't you start by naming the committee in your state, and give us its budget - some indication that this is a serious effort and not something akin to "The Veterans of Foreign Women" (my generic name for some non-entity group with an axe to grind.) And your behavior, Krygowski, is why I pretty much hold you in complete contempt. I've yet to see you even attempt to engage in a real discussion. All you do is mindless marketing and amaturish attempts to imitate slime like Karl Rove. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#1007
|
|||
|
|||
|
#1008
|
|||
|
|||
Frank Krygowski writes:
Steven M. Scharf wrote: The motivation is perfectly clear. Frank does not wear a helmet, and hence if someone wears a helmet they must be misinformed because Frank has never been in an accident where a helmet would have prevented or reduced injuries. Frank eschews powerful bicycle lights, so anyone that opts for more powerful lights must be misinformed because Frank has never experienced a vehicle not seeing him, or striking him. As usual, Scharf speaks with incredible hubris and incredible ignorance. And as usual, Scharf distorts what I've said in a desparate attempt to look a little less foolish. Hmm. You just said that about me, as you do about anyone who disagrees with you on your helmet pet peeve. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#1009
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Z. Wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: As usual, Scharf speaks with incredible hubris and incredible ignorance. And as usual, Scharf distorts what I've said in a desparate attempt to look a little less foolish. Hmm. You just said that about me, as you do about anyone who disagrees with you on your helmet pet peeve. My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB Well Bill - if the cap fits...? There are some discernable differences between you and Scharf, but for the most part you two do seem to exhibit striking similarities - I'd say you two were cut from the same cloth - and what a weave it is! As for what Frank says - it's appropriate - misrepresentation of your opponents position seems to be one of your stock standard responses. Roger -- RogerDodger |
#1010
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Z. wrote:
Hmm. You just said that about me, as you do about anyone who disagrees with you on your helmet pet peeve. Duh. Coming from Frank, that's a compliment. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | Social Issues | 1716 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
Another doctor questions helmet research | JFJones | General | 80 | August 16th 04 10:44 AM |
First Helmet : jury is out. | Walter Mitty | General | 125 | June 26th 04 02:00 AM |
Fule face helmet - review | Mikefule | Unicycling | 8 | January 14th 04 05:56 PM |