Helmet propaganda debunked

"jtaylor" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
Krygowksi, go f___ yourself. As anyone can tell, Guy is simply
lying through his teeth and you are jumping in due to your decades
long grudge.

So tell us, Bill, have you read the Curnow report, and if so, what do
you
think of it?

Krygowski has been on my case for over a decade, and recycles the
same garbage over and over, figuring that if you repeat personal
insults enough, most people will start to believe it.

Given his persistent behavior I have every right to tell him to f___
off - it's the only way of phrasing it that he might understand.

I already told you what I thought of what you posted and don't have
time right now, or for most of the next week, to post much else.


You could have easily answered my question, in the time you took to avoid
it, so:

I posted that I didn't have time to respond at after 11 PM on a Sunday
evening. Are you really so daft as to expect a detailed response at that
hour when it is basically time to go to bed so that I'll be reasonably
awake at work the next day?

And, as I said, I'm going to be too busy this week to post much if
anything.

Have you read the Curnow report, and if so, what do you think of it?

Also, as I said, I don't answer questions about my reading habits. If
I answer one, I'll get continual questions about every other paper
some random person published, as Krygowski and friends try to deflect
their discussion into a personal attack - that is the traditional
modus operandi that they have used on everyone else they disagree
with.

Why should I waste my time to help them out?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 06:25:57 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

"well-known usenet anti-helmet character...and I presume that
is the major source the author used."

And is a true statement,

That you presume it is not in doubt. That Burdett was the major
source is obviously not the case.

It is more than likely the case. Reporters are basically lazy by
nature (actually, they work under tight deadlines, which has the
same effect, as they often have to cut corners to meet deadlines.)

I was refering to what the article said, not the technical work
actually done, but that doesn't mean he didn't just parrot whatever
Burdett - who is anything but unbiased - told him.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"jtaylor" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
writes:

OK, enough distraction. Back to watching Bill Zaumen make a fool of
himself!

Krygowksi, go f___ yourself. As anyone can tell, Guy is simply
lying through his teeth and you are jumping in due to your decades
long grudge.

So tell us, Bill, have you read the Curnow report, and if so, what do you
think of it?

While I don't have a time to post a long analysis of anything right now,
I'll refer you to http://www.perg.bham.ac.uk/pdf/IRCOBI03.pdf,
which describes a finite element analysis comparing new bicycle helmet
designs to old ones. It includes an analysis of Curnow's paper, in
particular, stating that it's criticism is based on unproven premises.

He also metions Burdett's "FAQ" page, pointing out a number of times
that the information in it is simply wrong.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Tue, 03 May 2005 01:39:45 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

That you presume it is not in doubt. That Burdett was the major
source is obviously not the case.

It is more than likely the case.

No, Bill, it is not the case. I know Carlton Reid personally.

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

On Tue, 03 May 2005 01:18:21 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Krygowski has been on my case for over a decade, and recycles the
same garbage over and over, figuring that if you repeat personal
insults enough, most people will start to believe it.

So you would never dream of doing that, right? For example, you'd
never dream of commenting on another poster's arrest record in an
attempt to discredit them.

That particular poster commented on his arrest record himself by
posting it,

In another context. You on the other hand, dragged it up as if it
were relevant to the issue under discussion (which it was not, by any
stretch of the imagination).

and petty much all I did was to provide the URL to what he
himself said. And that particular poster is an anti-helmet nut

It may seem to you that anybody even mildly sceptical of the more
absurd pro-helmet propaganda is "anti-helmet" but that is your
zealot's fantasy, not a reality of any kind.

It is interesting that you bring it up, however. Are these people
so bad that even you are embarassed to have associated yourself with
them?

The relevance was obvious. You are flinging accusations about, but
you very evidently fail to live up to the standards you require of
others.

I note that you didn't answer the question: have you read Curnow's
paper?

No matter what I say, you'll claim I didn't read it: you characters
have done that even when I quoted a relevant section of a report
verbatim.

Not at all. If you tell us you've read it, we can debate the content.
Otherwise you have nothing worthwhile to add.

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

Your signature, however, tells us a lot about your preconceptions. :-)

Unusually perceptive of you, it does indeed tell us that my
preconceptions were shattered when I read the research and found out
just how poor it is.

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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Tue, 03 May 2005 01:39:45 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

That you presume it is not in doubt. That Burdett was the major
source is obviously not the case.

It is more than likely the case.

No, Bill, it is not the case. I know Carlton Reid personally.

Since your credibility is zero ...


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Tue, 03 May 2005 01:18:21 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

That particular poster commented on his arrest record himself by
posting it,

In another context. You on the other hand, dragged it up as if it
were relevant to the issue under discussion (which it was not, by any
stretch of the imagination).

The guy is one of the most abusive trolls on these newsgroups, and
insults anyone he disgrees with, often in the vilest possible
terms. "Dragging it up" simply short-circuited the discussion to
avoid boring everyone with yet another long rant from said bozo.

It may seem to you that anybody even mildly sceptical of the more
absurd pro-helmet propaganda is "anti-helmet" but that is your
zealot's fantasy, not a reality of any kind.

I've never posted any "pro-helmet propaganda." I've been simply
pointing out how bogus the views of the anti-helmet fanatics are.

It is interesting that you bring it up, however. Are these people
so bad that even you are embarassed to have associated yourself with
them?

The relevance was obvious. You are flinging accusations about, but
you very evidently fail to live up to the standards you require of
others.

Oh nonsense. I did not fling any accusations. I posted a link to a
post made by the person in question and let his own words speak for
themselves. He didn't seem to like that, but maybe he shouldn't have
said what he did. Or even better, maybe he shouldn't have slapped his
girlfriend and then whine on the net years after the fact about how
badly he thought he was treated.

Of couse, it does explain his abusive behavior on usenet.

I note that you didn't answer the question: have you read Curnow's
paper?

No matter what I say, you'll claim I didn't read it: you characters
have done that even when I quoted a relevant section of a report
verbatim.

Not at all. If you tell us you've read it, we can debate the content.
Otherwise you have nothing worthwhile to add.

I just posted a URL with some reasonable statements about that paper,
including why it is base on premises whose validity are at present
unknown, and with results shooting down garbage the Burdett puts out
on his anti-helmet web page.

I'll note that you seem to be ignoring that. It as posted hours ago.
I'm sure you saw it. If you'll ignore that, why should I waste my
time typing in gobs of text that you'll ignore anyway?

Don't expect a reply for a few days - I've got some things to take
care of and probably won't have time.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Tue, 03 May 2005 06:40:16 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

The guy is one of the most abusive trolls on these newsgroups, and
insults anyone he disgrees with, often in the vilest possible
terms.

Whereas you rubbish reports you have not read properly if at all (aka
"trolling") and fling insults around at anyone who disagrees with you.
You can't pretend to the moral high ground when you have one foot in
the gutter, Bill.

It may seem to you that anybody even mildly sceptical of the more
absurd pro-helmet propaganda is "anti-helmet" but that is your
zealot's fantasy, not a reality of any kind.

I've never posted any "pro-helmet propaganda." I've been simply
pointing out how bogus the views of the anti-helmet fanatics are.

First, I didn't say you had posted pro-helmet propaganda. God knows
there is enough of it about without you pitching in. Only this week I
sent off a complaint about a radio advert which says, pretty much in
as many words, that a helmet would bounce off from an impact severe
enough to destroy the skull and spread brain matter along the
pavement. Plausible? I don't think so.

Second, you use again the term "anti-helmet" but, unlike you, I
actually know some of these people quite well. They (we) are not
anti-helmet. What we don't like is the way the pro-helmet lobby uses
lies and distortions to push its views on others. We are very happy
for people to review the evidence and make up their own minds. Those
who are pro-helmet have already made up our minds for us, and brook no
argument. I have been told by a pro-helmet activist that by
publicising the failure of the Australian and New Zealand laws to
deliver any measurable benefit I am interfering in people's making an
informed choice. Where I come from "informed choice" means informed
by all the facts, not just those which one side or the other finds
convenient. The major reason you only see sceptical posts from us is
that we are almost always responding to some foolish piece of helmet
puffery, quite often the standard "helmet saved my life" anecdote.
That and the fact that people tend to see only what they want to see.

Third, you say these views are bogus, but just about every time it
gets down to discussion of the details it turns out that you have not
read the sources. Almost all of us who you characterise as
"anti-helmet" have arrived here from a pro-helmet stance as a result
of reviewing the evidence *in detail*. I know only one or two
genuinely anti-helmet activists. Your statement is an illustration of
the fact that a zealot is often unable to tell the difference between
an agnostic and an atheist.

The relevance was obvious. You are flinging accusations about, but
you very evidently fail to live up to the standards you require of
others.

Oh nonsense. I did not fling any accusations.

So far in this thread you have denigrated Burdett, Krygowski, me and
jtaylor, primarily on the grounds that you disagree with us. Quite a
high hit rate for someone who's not flinging accusations.

Of couse, it does explain his abusive behavior on usenet.

Towards you? No explanation is needed beyond your posting style. Let
us take this thread as a classic example. You start by rubbishing a
document which, after prolonged argument, you admit you have not read
in detail. Your primary grounds for rubbishing it are that it cites
someone you disagree with, you have no real comment on the content
itself save to disparage the author for using a British colloquialism
which you don't like. You then start accusing people of being
anti-helmet and morons, and then you start accusing other people of
trolling (as if your first post in this thread was anything else). If
this thread follows the normal pattern you have now entrenched
yourself in a position where you will refuse on a point of pride to
read either the BikeBiz article in detail, or the study it cites, and
you will continue arguing the toss ad nauseam. Please do prove me
wrong, the change would be most refreshing.

I note that you didn't answer the question: have you read Curnow's
paper?
No matter what I say, you'll claim I didn't read it: you characters
have done that even when I quoted a relevant section of a report
verbatim.
Not at all. If you tell us you've read it, we can debate the content.
Otherwise you have nothing worthwhile to add.

I just posted a URL with some reasonable statements about that paper,
including why it is base on premises whose validity are at present
unknown, and with results shooting down garbage the Burdett puts out
on his anti-helmet web page.

No, Bill, you did not. As you would know if you had read the BikeBiz
article properly, or the Curnow paper at all, the link you posted
predates the Curnow paper so cannot be discussing it at all.

I'll note that you seem to be ignoring that. It as posted hours ago.

No, Bill, I am not ignoring it. I have already read it. Different
time zones. It is now 09:15 here, you posted it overnight my time.

I read the study you linked some time ago, actually. It makes some
good points regarding the inadequacy of the EN 1078 standard (which my
contact at Head Protection Evaluations would likely agree with), it
agrees with Curnow and others that the issue of rotational forces is
largely untested and demands further research, it makes some rather
simplistic assumptions (including striking the helmet at just the
angle most likely to coincide with a rib, fancy that), and it
addresses as if they were substantive points, rather than asides, a
few comments made about the design of helmets.

It does not talk about the way helmet standards have been watered down
over the years, and it does not comment on the fact that many modern
helmets actually fail the standards tests. It also begs the question
rather in making statements such as "it is not easy to _prove_ that
wearing a helmet reduces the rotational acceleration" - with the clear
implication being "if only we had better data we'd show we were right"
inna Thompson & Rivara stylee. When you consider that they are
criticising Curnow for making such claims (with some justification),
that seems an obvious piece of bias.

But it is an interesting paper, and I look forward to its publication
after peer-review has ironed out these wrinkles. They are right that
much of the helmet debate is dominated by religion more than science,
which is a point the 2005 Curnow paper makes.

Curnow's work has been published and peer-reviewed, which is
absolutely not a guarantee of infallibility but does bring the debate
into the open. I think Curnow is more emphatic regarding rotational
trauma than is warranted by the evidence, but he knows *far* more
about it than I do.

I'm sure you saw it. If you'll ignore that, why should I waste my
time typing in gobs of text that you'll ignore anyway?

As stated, if you gave a modicum of thought to the situation you would
realise that time zones account for the difference. The irony of your
accusing me of not reading your posts is not lost on me.

Don't expect a reply for a few days - I've got some things to take
care of and probably won't have time.

I will try very hard not to pine in your absence.

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, 03 May 2005 06:28:30 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

That you presume it is not in doubt. That Burdett was the major
source is obviously not the case.
It is more than likely the case.
No, Bill, it is not the case. I know Carlton Reid personally.
Since your credibility is zero ...

Said the man who is accusing everybody else in sight of being abusive
and trolling.

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, 03 May 2005 01:36:32 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

You could have easily answered my question, in the time you took to avoid
it, so:

I posted that I didn't have time to respond at after 11 PM on a Sunday
evening.

The question was first asked at 17:18 EDT on Sunday and repeated
yesterday. You have found time in the intervening period to argue the
toss about people you don't like. Your excuse is rather thin.

Are you really so daft as to expect a detailed response at that
hour when it is basically time to go to bed so that I'll be reasonably
awake at work the next day?

Why not? at around 7am my time this morning you had a go at me for
not having responded yet to something you posted somewhat before 4am
my time. Even in your newsreader's timezone these were late in the
day (past 10pm and 2am). Sauce for the goose...

Have you read the Curnow report, and if so, what do you think of it?

Also, as I said, I don't answer questions about my reading habits.

Well, that's not strictly true, is it? You have answered in the past
to say you had not read a paper because the library was shut for July
4, and I seem to recall your stating that you had read one particular
paper in full (one of the Scuffham ones, I think) because the full
text was available on the Internet. And in this thread you did
eventually admit that you had not read the BikeBiz article properly.
So your objection to revealing your "reading habits" seems to be
situational rather than principled.

If
I answer one, I'll get continual questions about every other paper
some random person published, as Krygowski and friends try to deflect
their discussion into a personal attack - that is the traditional
modus operandi that they have used on everyone else they disagree
with.

You say that, but looking at this thread the one using personal attack
to deflect discussion away from the BikeBiz story and the Curnow paper
is you. So that looks rather like projection on your part, doesn't
it?

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