Helmet propaganda debunked

Bill Z. wrote:
...

Check the archives.


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.soc/msg/9c818dbaed66dad4

Oh, good grief. What bull****!

You're like a freshman with a new calculator. Your numbers are fine,
but your assumptions and conclusions are worthless.

First, you've given "proof" that your hypothetical helmet benefit
couldn't be detected using the entire US population! After all, the US
has fewer than your assumed 900 bike-related fatalities per year.

If strapping helmets on the entire US would deliver no observed
benefit, what's the point of promoting them?

Second, you're claiming a 10% reduction in fatality risk would be
"useful." That makes sense only to a person who has no understanding
of risk. Specifically, the risk of fatality in bike riding is
infinitesmal. Reducing an already infinitesmal risk by 10% is a not
"useful."

If reducing an infinitesmal risk by 10% were useful, meteorite
umbrellas would be big sellers.

So, in essence, the numerical work for which you're patting yourself on
the back says this: "Helmet benefit can never be detected, but we
should wear helmets anyway, so they can make a very safe activity ...
um, safe."



BTW, Bill, since you are obviously proud of your little math exercise,
why not submit it to a peer-reviewed journal for publication? ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

At 12 Jun 2005 07:56:52 -0700, message
.com was posted by
, including some, all or none of the following:

First, you've given "proof" that your hypothetical helmet benefit
couldn't be detected using the entire US population! After all, the US
has fewer than your assumed 900 bike-related fatalities per year.

But Frank, if you were to look at *all* cyclist injuries and
fatalities over several years, you'd get to Bill's significance
criterion.

Only one study I know of has ever done that: Rodgers.

As you know, Rodgers found no correlation between helmet use and
serious injury, and a small but statistically significant increase in
risk of death among helmeted riders!

So, by Bill's own criteria, scepticism is the *only* view backed by
robust science! We should thank him for setting the bar so high :-)

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
...

Check the archives.


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.soc/msg/9c818dbaed66dad4

Oh, good grief. What bull****!

You're like a freshman with a new calculator. Your numbers are fine,
but your assumptions and conclusions are worthless.

First, you've given "proof" that your hypothetical helmet benefit
couldn't be detected using the entire US population! After all, the US
has fewer than your assumed 900 bike-related fatalities per year.

900 was a rough estimate (and indicated as such) to make the numbers
easy for the reader to follow, since the square root is 30. And the
proof is just that - *proof* using standard statistical techniques.
The actual numbers are slightly less, varying from year to year, but
what you are apparently too stupid to understand is that by using a
higher number, I was actually *understating* the point I was making.

If strapping helmets on the entire US would deliver no observed
benefit, what's the point of promoting them?

Second, you're claiming a 10% reduction in fatality risk would be
"useful." That makes sense only to a person who has no understanding
of risk.

Oh that's the silliest thing you've said. Helmets aren't all that
expensive and are not uncomfortable to wear in most circumstances,
so a 10% reduction in the fatalities (due to heade injuries) is
just fine.

Specifically, the risk of fatality in bike riding is infinitesmal.
Reducing an already infinitesmal risk by 10% is a not "useful.

900 fatalities per year is not infinitesmal. We had about 3000
fatalities when the World Trade Center was destroyed and our
government considered that grounds to launch a full scale war.

If reducing an infinitesmal risk by 10% were useful, meteorite
umbrellas would be big sellers.

I know one person with a permanent bald spot on his head due to
a fall on a bike where he hit his head. How many people do you
know who have been hit by meteorites?

BTW, Bill, since you are obviously proud of your little math exercise,
why not submit it to a peer-reviewed journal for publication? ;-)

"Proud"? This is elementary stuff, and you should know that. Your
smokescreen and childish personal comments are just an attempt to
cover up the obvious - that all you and your "friends" are posting is
mindless drivel to serve some bizarre agenda that makes sense to 4 or
5 people world wide.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

At Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:10:27 GMT, message
was posted by
(Bill Z.), including some, all or none of
the following:

Sometimes you admit you haven't read them, sometimes you just show
that you have not. All inference based on what you post, I freely
admit - it is of course perfectly possible tat you have in-depth
knowledge of the research and just pretend you don't.

When? Do you think "show[ing] that you have not" is a synonym with
not agreeing with you?

No, but stating that a report is about one thing when actually it's
about another (as with the latest AAP paper under discussion) is a
dead giveaway.

What the hell are you talking about? I responded to what *you* posted
and you just tried to pretend I was talking about something else.

rest of Guy's infantile rant snipped.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

At 12 Jun 2005 07:56:52 -0700, message
.com was posted by
, including some, all or none of the following:

First, you've given "proof" that your hypothetical helmet benefit
couldn't be detected using the entire US population! After all, the US
has fewer than your assumed 900 bike-related fatalities per year.

But Frank, if you were to look at *all* cyclist injuries and
fatalities over several years, you'd get to Bill's significance
criterion.

Only one study I know of has ever done that: Rodgers.

As you know, Rodgers found no correlation between helmet use and
serious injury, and a small but statistically significant increase in
risk of death among helmeted riders!

So, by Bill's own criteria, scepticism is the *only* view backed by
robust science! We should thank him for setting the bar so high :-)

A "small but statistically significant increase" can occur by chance,
and sometimes does. BTW, previously I explained the problem with
looking at the nubmer of serious injuries as well, if you just
count the number deemed "serious."

Basically, you characters are going around as you have for over a
decade trying to spin non-results due to insufficient data into a
negative claim about helmets.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 03:17:35 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

But Frank, if you were to look at *all* cyclist injuries and
fatalities over several years, you'd get to Bill's significance
criterion.
Only one study I know of has ever done that: Rodgers.
As you know, Rodgers found no correlation between helmet use and
serious injury, and a small but statistically significant increase in
risk of death among helmeted riders!

A "small but statistically significant increase" can occur by chance,
and sometimes does.

But a lack of correlation between helmet use and injury, in a sample
this big, is *very* unlikely to be down to chance.

BTW, previously I explained the problem with
looking at the nubmer of serious injuries as well, if you just
count the number deemed "serious."

Everyone knows the problems with dealing with any of the numbers
except fatalities - the fatality stats are the only ones which are
really robust. So with the largest sample population, the longest
time span and the largest count of fatalities, Rogers is the only one
that you might deem significant.

Basically, you characters are going around as you have for over a
decade trying to spin non-results due to insufficient data into a
negative claim about helmets.

No we're not, we're pointing out that the inflated claims made by
helmet promoters have no obvious basis in reality. It's called
scepticism.

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 CHS, Puget Sound

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 03:13:12 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Sometimes you admit you haven't read them, sometimes you just show
that you have not. All inference based on what you post, I freely
admit - it is of course perfectly possible tat you have in-depth
knowledge of the research and just pretend you don't.

When? Do you think "show[ing] that you have not" is a synonym with
not agreeing with you?

No, but stating that a report is about one thing when actually it's
about another (as with the latest AAP paper under discussion) is a
dead giveaway.

What the hell are you talking about? I responded to what *you* posted
and you just tried to pretend I was talking about something else.

Bill, you need to go back and read the post to which you responded in
starting this thread, then you need to read the abstract of the
report, then you need to go back and look at your subsequent posts
attempting to justify your trashing of a report you clearly hadn't
read. Have you read it yet?

rest of Guy's infantile rant snipped.

Translation: "Tra la la la la, I'm not listening".

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 CHS, Puget Sound

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 03:17:35 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

But Frank, if you were to look at *all* cyclist injuries and
fatalities over several years, you'd get to Bill's significance
criterion.
Only one study I know of has ever done that: Rodgers.
As you know, Rodgers found no correlation between helmet use and
serious injury, and a small but statistically significant increase in
risk of death among helmeted riders!

A "small but statistically significant increase" can occur by chance,
and sometimes does.

But a lack of correlation between helmet use and injury, in a sample
this big, is *very* unlikely to be down to chance.

Sigh. You said, "a small but statistically singificant increase in
risk of death among helmeted riders", adding an explanation point as
if this actually was important. The catch is the term "statistically
significant." Do you consider a confidence level of 95% to be statistically
significant or would you prefer 99% or 99.999%?

I'll note that when I previously asked you to quantify what you were
talking about, you refused. I wonder why.

Everyone knows the problems with dealing with any of the numbers
except fatalities - the fatality stats are the only ones which are
really robust. So with the largest sample population, the longest
time span and the largest count of fatalities, Rogers is the only one
that you might deem significant.

And everyone should know, as I pointed out years ago, that there are
so few fatalities that you will not obtain any data that can prove
anything useful about helmets.

No we're not, we're pointing out that the inflated claims made by
helmet promoters have no obvious basis in reality. It's called
scepticism.

There are no such promoters on this newsgroup. You could just
was well be complaining about "inflated claims made by" the
boogyman.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 03:13:12 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

No, but stating that a report is about one thing when actually it's
about another (as with the latest AAP paper under discussion) is a
dead giveaway.

What the hell are you talking about? I responded to what *you* posted
and you just tried to pretend I was talking about something else.

Bill, you need to go back and read the post to which you responded in
starting this thread, then you need to read the abstract of the
report, then you need to go back and look at your subsequent posts
attempting to justify your trashing of a report you clearly hadn't
read. Have you read it yet?

I didn't trash a report I hadn't read. You are just posting another
of your many lies. You are simply trying to morph a comment about
what *you* said into a statement about what someone else said, and
you repeat that lie incessantly.

rest of Guy's infantile rant snipped.

Translation: "Tra la la la la, I'm not listening".

.... Guy proving once again that he has the emotional majurity of a 3
year old child.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

At Fri, 17 Jun 2005 20:53:01 GMT, message
was posted by
(Bill Z.), including some, all or none of
the following:

Only one study I know of has ever done that: Rodgers.
As you know, Rodgers found no correlation between helmet use and
serious injury, and a small but statistically significant increase in
risk of death among helmeted riders!

A "small but statistically significant increase" can occur by chance,
and sometimes does.

But a lack of correlation between helmet use and injury, in a sample
this big, is *very* unlikely to be down to chance.

Sigh. You said, "a small but statistically singificant increase in
risk of death among helmeted riders",

No, I said "Rodgers found no correlation between helmet use and
serious injury, and a small but statistically significant increase in
risk of death among helmeted riders".

Have you not read the Rodgers study? It is one of its more prominent
conclusions.

I'll note that when I previously asked you to quantify what you were
talking about, you refused. I wonder why.

What you asked was whether a given population was big enough to
exclude the possibility of an arbitrarily chosen level of benefit - a
piece of egregious question-begging which ignores the fundamental fact
that no population has shown any significant improvement in cyclist
injury rates with increasing helmet use, including in the
jurisdictions where helmet use has increased by 40 percentage points
or more as a result of compulsion.

I know of no pro-helmet study which is based on a bigger study
population than that of New Zealand; the only study of which I am
aware which meets that criterion is Rodgers.

For some reason you appear to reject the experience of New Zealand on
the grounds of small population, while cleaving to the results of
studies based on much smaller populations and which include systematic
bias due to confounding.

Perhaps this is ignorance, rather than wilfulness. How many of the
major studies have you actually read? Whenever I post a detailed
question regarding your interpretation of a particular figure or chart
you fail to answer, so perhaps you haven't.

Everyone knows the problems with dealing with any of the numbers
except fatalities - the fatality stats are the only ones which are
really robust. So with the largest sample population, the longest
time span and the largest count of fatalities, Rogers is the only one
that you might deem significant.

And everyone should know, as I pointed out years ago, that there are
so few fatalities that you will not obtain any data that can prove
anything useful about helmets.

The figures for law jurisdictions include fatalities and serious
injuries. But here we have a bit of a dichotomy: given that cycling
is not particularly dangerous, I wonder why you are so keen on wearing
a helmet? De gustibus ne disputandum, I suppose.

No we're not, we're pointing out that the inflated claims made by
helmet promoters have no obvious basis in reality. It's called
scepticism.

There are no such promoters on this newsgroup.

And all those "helmet saved my life" stories are just sock-puppets of
the sceptics are they? You crack me up!

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound