advisor wanted

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 07:35:46 +0000, Tony Raven
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:21:47 +0000, Tony Raven
wrote:

wrote:
Te wstats are interesting, but a good portion of what is NOT discussed is
driver's attitudes on cyclists on the road. Until that can be equated,
they are interesitng but do not reflect the actual riding conditions.

The common feature of all the stats, even for cycle friendly Holland, is
that the characteristics of the accidents that happen are virtually
identical and involve being hit by a motor vehicle most of the time. In
what way is a helmet going to protect you from being hit by a motor
vehicle in the US that its not going to do being hit by a motor vehicle
in Australia or Holland? And how is your helmet going to stop them
shouting at you but not actually running you over?


Apples and oranges Tony. I can lead you to water, but if you don't
want to drink, so be it.


You really are fixated on those fruits aren't you. I wish you would
lead me somewhere. So far your wells have been dry. How about you
produce some data where whole population studies have shown an
improvement in injury rates (of any sort) through increases in helmet
wearing rates?


The point, once again, has gone right past you without notice. You
related to pete?

The studies that have been crted only deal with SERIOUS injuries.

Got that?

Is it possible that helmets have prevented or lessened some would-be
SERIOUS injuries enough that no hospital visit was required?

Got that?

As there is no hospital visit , those NON-SERIOUS injuries do not
exist in hospital data.

Got that?

Therfore the information on these injuries are not included in the
research because they are derived from those official sources of data.

Got that?

Connect the dots.


jim

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 07:33:50 +0000, Tony Raven
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:28:57 +0000, Tony Raven
wrote:

Peter Clinch wrote:
wrote:

There is another set of factors operating here that all this ignores and
that is most European countries are cyclist friendly.
Nobody has told the figures gathered in the US that so they remain
oblivious to it. Please cite some that show me some casualty savings
for helmet wearing.

Can I cite the largest survey ever carried out*, of over 8
million cases of injury and death to cyclists in the USA over 15
years, concluded that there was no evidence that helmets had reduced
head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, it suggested that helmeted
riders were more likely to be killed.

* Reducing Bicycle Accidents: A re-evaluation of the impacts of the
CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Rodgers. Journal of Product
Liability, Vol 11 pp 307-317, 1988.


Hmmm and not a word about th reduction from serious to non-serious,
eh?


How so? It said helmets did not reduce head injury rates and you think
that is "not a word"? Curious. I notice also that you do not comment
on the suggestion that helmeted riders were more likely to be killed.
But that doesn't fit with your world view so best ignore it eh?

The information only includes SERIOUS injury data. That information
comes from hospitals/insurance data. NON-SERIOUS injury data has not
been reported nor included in the study.

What part of that escapes you?


jim

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 08:56:22 +0000, Peter Clinch
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:28:57 +0000, Tony Raven
wrote:

Can I cite the largest survey ever carried out*, of over 8
million cases of injury and death to cyclists in the USA over 15
years, concluded that there was no evidence that helmets had reduced
head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, it suggested that helmeted
riders were more likely to be killed.

Hmmm and not a word about th reduction from serious to non-serious,
eh?

How can you tell without reading it that "head injury" refers purely to
serious head injuries?

And even assuming some do go from serious to non-serious, how will that
*not* affect the serious rates, by reducing them? After all, if you've
removed serious injuries by downgrading them, then there must be fewer
serious injuries. Still not a word from you about how that would not be
the case, and not a word of proof from you that any injuries are taken
from serious to non-serious.

Pete, I've reached the conclusion that you about as dense as the sun's
core.

Where was the actual data for the study collected?

Was anyone here surveyed for any of these studies?

The information, more than likely , came from official reports
compiled by hospitals, ambulance incident reports, and/or insurance
data.

So, if you had an accdent and did not have an ambulance call, visit to
the hospital or file a insurace claim, your accident, officially, does
not exist. As such, it was not included in the research because the
rsearch addresses only reported injuries of a SERIOUS nature.

There is an entire category of injuries was not included in the study.
NON-REPORTED/non-serious injuries.


jim

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 08:52:33 +0000, Peter Clinch
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 07:53:49 +0000, Peter Clinch
brain farted and said nothing:

Still can't demonstrate any casualty savings from helmet use, I see...

That really is the bottom line for saying people should wear them to
make themselves safer. And if helmets make people safer that should be
shown by casualty savings. So where are they?

Wrong, pete, non-reported injuries are precisley those that are not
accounted for. Serious injuries get reported by ambulances, hospitals,
police, insurance companies and records are made. NON-serious injuries
are not (did you report your ankle sprain to any of the above?
Probably not.).


As they are not reported, no casualty company can report on them
because, as they have not been reported, they "officially" do not
exist, (even though you did sprain that ankle).

That; is where these studies fail - they do not account for any
injuries that do not have some report on it. That is why they solely
address "serious" injuries because there is a paper trail.

Among those non-reported injuries are cases like mine that exist only
anecdotally simply because my helmet prevented something from becoming
serious, and therefore, reportable.


jim

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 08:50:14 +0000, Peter Clinch
wrote:

wrote:

So, do you agree with me that helmets may be responsible for a portion
of those non-serious injuries being prevented from becoming serious?

If that is the case then why do you think the rates from serious
injuries will be unaffected by the increasing use of helmets relative to
when no helmets were used?

Yes I do, because they go UNREPORTED and officially do not exist.
There is no way to account for them in the report so they are ignored.


As for "may do", what "may" happen has a burden of proof both ways.
Where do you have any proof of your assertion? If there is none, why
should anyone treat it as /necessarily/ true?

Actually, I was riding with a couple I knew and they were witness to
it, of course, you can raise the same bogus red herring with their
existence as you just have with me. I'd say you're stooping further
down.

Why should I treat you as anything other than a troll?




Pete.

wrote:

I am simply asking a very direct question that you are also invited to
answer:

Which is friendliest to cyclists - the US or Europe?

I cannot objectively say, and nor can you. Aside from anything
else the question is so broad as to be meaningless. But it makes
no real difference to the point which is wherever people have
looked at the population data, including the biggest ever such
study based in the US that Tony Raven cited for you and also on
European data and Australia and NZ and Canada, there has been no
reduction is serious injuries from increased helmet wearing among
the cycling population.

Yet you can't come up with any figures to show this is the case. If
they had gone to ER that would have been a serious injury and the
serious injury rate would be higher as a result if your supposition was
correct. The figures don't back you up.

Nice turnaround.

Turnaround? It's what I've been saying all along. Read the thread
again if you don't believe that.

I have also maintained that these figures cannot be
found ecause they are not collected.

But the figures for serious injuries /are/ collected, and if they
are being reduced by instances of accidents /not/ being collected
because they have moved to a non-serious, non ER attending case
then we will see that in a reduction of serious injuries. As I
have pointed out several times, along with the fact that no such
reduction is evident.

The body of the anecdotal
evidence that helmets work would probably be in this area - as would
the incident that happened to me. YOU on the other hand have only
ventured into the seious injury category and try to use that
information as being exlusive. It is not.

No, it isn't exclusive but the instances where accidents are
removed from it will show up as a reduction. Or they should do if
your point rang true, but it doesn't.

It s relevant because it shows that things do happpen outside the
expected norms. The reports you cite do not include them because they
are not collected. Or can you prove they were collected?

Once again, if an accident is not serious, but would have been
serious without a helmet, that would show up in a reduction of
serious injuries over time as helmet wearing has increased. It
doesn't.

Writing science fiction I see. Bad attempt, pete.

Read "Risk", by John Adams, to find out about Risk Homoeostasis.
It has plenty of Real World examples, including the seatbelt data
that you previously dismissed out of hand as "BS".

No, I cannot not and have never said that I could. Can you guarantee
that someone else's accident will end up 100% the way you think it
will vis-a-vis a helmet?

And how is that? I think it might make you either worse off,
better off, or about the same, with the overall balance of
probabilities no different either way. In any individual case we
don't know, over the sum of all cases we do know the overall
effect, which is basically nothing. So your anecdote is less
useful than the figures that make up the sum of all the anecdotes,
including any where the helmet takes a serious injury out of the
total figure. For a net effect of zero, if there are such cases
then there logically will be others where a helmet has "worked" the
other way, or the figure for serious injury rates would be changing
in the cyclists' favour with increased helmet use. It isn't.

The study nothwithstanding, someone can
always be that 1 in x exception to the study.

Of course they can, but there's no way you can predict in advance
of your next notional accident whether you'll be an exception one
way, or an exception the other way with the helmet making things
worse. All you can do is play the odds, and realise there is no
change to your chance of serious injury by putting a helmet on.
And that includes missing out on a serious injury which a helmet
may change to a minor injury or no injury at all.

You cannot say that
helmets are useless unless you can prove that 100% because yours has
been and is a categorical statement, "helmets do not work."

Where have I said any such thing?

I have stated that a helmet makes no tangible difference to your
chances of avoiding a serious head injury. That is not the same
thing at all.

Wrong. They do.

But not at a level where they are effective at reducing serious
injuries. Or the rates for those injuries would be falling.
They're not.

This is about YOU (whoever answers) not some incident in the papers.

How many times and over what period of time in Europe?

You really aren't very good at this, are you. As you've just
pointed out at some length a single individual can buck the trends
of a study, so how is just looking at *me* of any help. By your
very own arguments it's completely pointless.

For reference, all these happened to me in a matter of two months in
San Diego. I never, NEVER, had any such thing or close to it while
riding in Greece.

Is Greece all of Europe, is San Diego all of America, are you
necessarily representative of the whole populations of each of
those areas? Answers are no, no, and very probably not.

I would not consider the role of paradise for the jolly old UK,
because I am not so supid as to believe that the UK constitutes the
entirely of Europe.

Yet somehow Greece seems to fill that role admirably well if it
suits your rather dubious statistical purposes. So one rule for
you and another for me, eh? Bit like the matter of burdens of
proof, on which subject you /still/ haven't shown me any casualty
savings.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:49:31 -0800, wrote:

NON-SERIOUS injury data has not
been reported nor included in the study.

I think that most people accept that helmets can protect against minor
cuts and abrasions. The moot point is over serious injury: do they
cause more than they save? Evidence suggests they have little effect.
And do the heath benefits of high rates of unhelmeted cycling outweigh
the health benefits of low rates of helmeted cycling? I wonder if the
Dutch have a lower rate of heart disease than the peoples of Belgium.

wrote:

The information only includes SERIOUS injury data. That information
comes from hospitals/insurance data. NON-SERIOUS injury data has not
been reported nor included in the study.

What part of that escapes you?

None of it. If helmets are taking serious injuries out of the
figures for SERIOUS injury then the SERIOUS injury data will be
changed by that fact. It isn't.

What part of that escapes *you*?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

wrote:

Pete, I've reached the conclusion that you about as dense as the sun's
core.

Where was the actual data for the study collected?

"The study"? Singular? You've simply proven you haven't even
attempted to follow up anything you've been pointed at. If you did
bother you could have some of your more ridiculous queries easily
answered.

So, if you had an accdent and did not have an ambulance call, visit to
the hospital or file a insurace claim, your accident, officially, does
not exist. As such, it was not included in the research because the
rsearch addresses only reported injuries of a SERIOUS nature.

Very good. And because the accident wasn't serious enough to worry
anyone about, that matters how, exactly?

It might matter if the accident would have been serious without a
helmet, but wasn't with one... but if that is the case then with
increasing helmet wearing rates the accidents of a SERIOUS nature
will be seen to fall as helmets prevent them. But as you've been
told repeatedly, that doesn't happen.

There is an entire category of injuries was not included in the study.

Again, you mean study, singular?

Why don't you stop pontificating from a base of pure assumption and
go and read some of the work you're so willing to dismiss? It
should be easy to prove it's bunk, if you've got a point. But like
showing casualty savings from increased helmet wearing, you either
won't or can't. Read the research for yourself, and then you'll be
in a position to ask intelligent questions, rather than missing the
point for the umpteenth time that if a helmet removes a data point
from SERIOUS injury listing then that contributes to the rate of
SERIOUS injuries going down, but we don't see that.

NON-REPORTED/non-serious injuries.

Not an issue if they wouldn't have been serious, contributing to a
fall in SERIOUS rates over time if they would have been.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:33:17 -0800, wrote:

Which is friendliest to cyclists - the US or Europe?

I think that it would be safe to say that parts of the US are more
cyclist friendly than parts of Europe, and that parts of Europe are
more cyclist friendly than parts of the US. Overall it would be hard
to judge. Europe is more densely populated, so more traffic. I
believe roundabouts, that is fast moving traffic, are more common in
Europe than the US, and traffic light junctions, that is slow moving
traffic, more common in the US than Europe. The cycle lane network is
more extensive in Europe, and a cycle lane alongside a major road
turns a simple 3 way junction into a complicated and dangerous 5 way
junction.