Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 1:21:11 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/15/2019 12:27 PM, jbeattie wrote:

From a biomechanical standpoint, helmets prevent or reduce certain injuries.

That's certainly true. Nobody here has ever claimed that they don't
reduce abrasions, cuts and perhaps some other minor injuries.

On the other hand, there's been no decrease in bicyclists' concussions
since bike helmets became widely used; in fact, there's been a massive
increase. The MIPS bandwagon is a direct result of that demonstrable
failure. (Not that I expect MIPS to cause any huge improvement.)

Also, there's no obvious evidence that bike helmets really save lives.
As Tom has demonstrated, percentage wise, cycling fatalities have not
dropped any faster than pedestrian fatalities. That's also true for the
subset of fatalities caused by traumatic brain injuries. (And cycling
has always had fewer TBI fatalities, and fewer per mile traveled, than
pedestrian travel. There are something like 325 bike fatalities per year
attributed to TBI, but over 1800 ped TBI fatalities.)

So while helmets may prevent or reduce certain minor injuries, they're
not effective against the ones they have been promoted for. If they were
made to meet FDA standards for proven effectiveness, they'd be taken off
the market!

Mandating helmet use is a permissible legislative choice. Policy in
Oregon is controlled in large part by voters in Portland, which by size
has the highest bicycle mode share of any city in the US, and yet Oregon
does not have a MHL for adults. This is because efforts have been
turned back by reasonable people appearing at legislative committee
meetings, submitting exhibits and doing the hard work associated with
supporting or opposing legislation.

Ohio does not have a MHL for either adults or for kids. I did that hard
work of opposing legislation via letters and appearing at a legislative
committee hearing. It worked.

Your counter-bleating does nothing to promote your cause...

On the contrary, many of the facts I presented in opposition to MHLs
were things I learned in part because of discussions here.

nor does criticizing doctors who are understandably concerned with individual patient outcomes and not population studies. They see a massive scalp wound and naturally conclude that a semi-rigid head covering would have helped.

Any clue why they yell about helmets only for the 1.5% - 2% of such
injuries that are related to bicycling, but not for the 99% that are
related to activities like motoring, pedestrian travel, descending
stairs, climbing ladders, walking around the home?

Bicycling has always been a very minor source of brain trauma. It
doesn't even make the unbiased lists of causes; it's just too small a
percentage of the problem.

Yet bicyclists are saddled with laws, with dishonest fear mongering,
with endless helmet promotions, and with insults if they ride without
helmets. It's a sign of the times that those who decide based on data
are attacked by those who are overconfident know-nothings.

And society as a whole suffers from this. It's not our biggest problem,
but obesity and other effects of sedentary life certainly are societal
health problems. Bicycling is a very practical way of building activity
into daily life. And every study on the subject has found its benefits
GREATLY outweigh its tiny risks. Yet it's saddled with this false image
of "Danger!" even by dedicated cyclists.

It's just weird.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I wouldn't blame helmets for any increase in concussions beyond the fact that PERHAPS people feel more confidence in doing stupid things. I would tend to doubt such a theory - it doesn't take many close calls to cause you to **** yourself regardless of faith in a helmet.

And lets not forget the huge increase in this time of MTB's which drew far younger participants with their usual lack of judgement.

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 2/15/2019 12:27 PM, jbeattie wrote:

[ ... ]


nor does criticizing doctors who are understandably concerned with
individual patient outcomes and not population studies. They see a
massive scalp wound and naturally conclude that a semi-rigid head
covering would have helped.

Any clue why they yell about helmets only for the 1.5% - 2% of such
injuries that are related to bicycling, but not for the 99% that are
related to activities like motoring, pedestrian travel, descending
stairs, climbing ladders, walking around the home?

Same reason PETA opposes fur coats more vociferously than they oppose
bacon cheeseburgers.

Bicycling has always been a very minor source of brain trauma. It
doesn't even make the unbiased lists of causes; it's just too small a
percentage of the problem.

Yet bicyclists are saddled with laws, with dishonest fear mongering,
with endless helmet promotions, and with insults if they ride without
helmets. It's a sign of the times that those who decide based on data
are attacked by those who are overconfident know-nothings.

And society as a whole suffers from this. It's not our biggest
problem, but obesity and other effects of sedentary life certainly are
societal health problems. Bicycling is a very practical way of
building activity into daily life. And every study on the subject has
found its benefits GREATLY outweigh its tiny risks. Yet it's saddled
with this false image of "Danger!" even by dedicated cyclists.

It's just weird.

--

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 1:21:11 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/15/2019 12:27 PM, jbeattie wrote:

From a biomechanical standpoint, helmets prevent or reduce certain injuries.

That's certainly true. Nobody here has ever claimed that they don't
reduce abrasions, cuts and perhaps some other minor injuries.

On the other hand, there's been no decrease in bicyclists' concussions
since bike helmets became widely used; in fact, there's been a massive
increase. The MIPS bandwagon is a direct result of that demonstrable
failure. (Not that I expect MIPS to cause any huge improvement.)

Also, there's no obvious evidence that bike helmets really save lives.
As Tom has demonstrated, percentage wise, cycling fatalities have not
dropped any faster than pedestrian fatalities. That's also true for the
subset of fatalities caused by traumatic brain injuries. (And cycling
has always had fewer TBI fatalities, and fewer per mile traveled, than
pedestrian travel. There are something like 325 bike fatalities per year
attributed to TBI, but over 1800 ped TBI fatalities.)

So while helmets may prevent or reduce certain minor injuries, they're
not effective against the ones they have been promoted for. If they were
made to meet FDA standards for proven effectiveness, they'd be taken off
the market!

Mandating helmet use is a permissible legislative choice. Policy in
Oregon is controlled in large part by voters in Portland, which by size
has the highest bicycle mode share of any city in the US, and yet Oregon
does not have a MHL for adults. This is because efforts have been
turned back by reasonable people appearing at legislative committee
meetings, submitting exhibits and doing the hard work associated with
supporting or opposing legislation.

Ohio does not have a MHL for either adults or for kids. I did that hard
work of opposing legislation via letters and appearing at a legislative
committee hearing. It worked.

Your counter-bleating does nothing to promote your cause...

On the contrary, many of the facts I presented in opposition to MHLs
were things I learned in part because of discussions here.

nor does criticizing doctors who are understandably concerned with individual patient outcomes and not population studies. They see a massive scalp wound and naturally conclude that a semi-rigid head covering would have helped.

Any clue why they yell about helmets only for the 1.5% - 2% of such
injuries that are related to bicycling, but not for the 99% that are
related to activities like motoring, pedestrian travel, descending
stairs, climbing ladders, walking around the home?

Bicycling has always been a very minor source of brain trauma. It
doesn't even make the unbiased lists of causes; it's just too small a
percentage of the problem.

Yet bicyclists are saddled with laws, with dishonest fear mongering,
with endless helmet promotions, and with insults if they ride without
helmets. It's a sign of the times that those who decide based on data
are attacked by those who are overconfident know-nothings.

Saddled with laws? You mean the vehicle code? The safety regulations for bicycles are so minimal as to be nearly non-existent. No tests. No license. No registration and no safety equipment -- except some US states have mandatory helmet laws for kids and a few cities have MHLs for all.

The incredible burden of non-applicable MHLs. It's staggering, except compared to every other burden I bear from property taxes to having to get a permit to change the wax ring on my toilet. If you feel oppressed by non-applicable helmet laws, you're living an easy life.

And society as a whole suffers from this. It's not our biggest problem,
but obesity and other effects of sedentary life certainly are societal
health problems. Bicycling is a very practical way of building activity
into daily life. And every study on the subject has found its benefits
GREATLY outweigh its tiny risks. Yet it's saddled with this false image
of "Danger!" even by dedicated cyclists.

It's just weird.

Personally, I think its weird that I can't cut down a tree in my yard that is more than 5" in diameter without paying a fine or that I am saddled with $22T in national debt or that I have to wear an orange vest and hard hat when I go to the ports to do a maritime casualty investigation. My hard hat is a joke -- a plastic shell and some straps. It might protect me from pigeon droppings, but that's about it. I'm upset that I can't pump my own gas! I'm madder than hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!

-- Jay Beattie.

Lotta anecdotes in this thread. I am so fair skinned, I have to wear a hat when I leave the house. I've also had cosmetic surgery to my face (for a motorcycle incident and an auto racing incident, not for bicycling incidents) and it is bloody painful. So I wear a bicycle helmet whenever I'm on my bike because at least it will keep the gravel from my face, and meanwhile it keeps the sun off me.

I have no great passion either way for MHLs; in fact, I view them the same way as seat belt laws, emanations of the nanny-state I just can't be bothered to resist. (It simply isn't a free speech or personal liberty case, by any reasonable analogy.) I just observe that there's a better, provable case than elsewhere for mandation in the States because there are indeed numbers to support the case, and because so many self-appointed Stateside "spokesmen for bicycles" are so annoyingly incompetent, and smug with it. As long ago as ten years, I presented both the pros and cons of that case for mandatory helmet laws in the US only at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms....bicycles.tech

But, as far as I'm concerned, the signature injury of cyclists isn't being banged in the head or scarred on the forehead like one earlier poster, but knobs on the little fingers at the joint nearest the nail from broken finger bones. Now, if the parade were, instead of against mandatory helmet laws for bicycles, for DOING SOMETHING ABOUT KNOBS ON LITTLE FINGERS, I'd march in that parade.

Andre Jute
Darwin rulez

On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 12:08:47 AM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 1:21:11 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski I'm upset that I can't pump my own gas! I'm madder than hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!

Oh my god! He still drives a gasoline CO2 emitter! Quick, take away his Democratic Party card before anyone else discovers we let him in.

Andre Jute
Car-free since 1992

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:21:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/15/2019 12:27 PM, jbeattie wrote:

From a biomechanical standpoint, helmets prevent or reduce certain injuries.

That's certainly true. Nobody here has ever claimed that they don't
reduce abrasions, cuts and perhaps some other minor injuries.

On the other hand, there's been no decrease in bicyclists' concussions
since bike helmets became widely used; in fact, there's been a massive
increase. The MIPS bandwagon is a direct result of that demonstrable
failure. (Not that I expect MIPS to cause any huge improvement.)

Also, there's no obvious evidence that bike helmets really save lives.
As Tom has demonstrated, percentage wise, cycling fatalities have not
dropped any faster than pedestrian fatalities. That's also true for the
subset of fatalities caused by traumatic brain injuries. (And cycling
has always had fewer TBI fatalities, and fewer per mile traveled, than
pedestrian travel. There are something like 325 bike fatalities per year
attributed to TBI, but over 1800 ped TBI fatalities.)

So while helmets may prevent or reduce certain minor injuries, they're
not effective against the ones they have been promoted for. If they were
made to meet FDA standards for proven effectiveness, they'd be taken off
the market!

Mandating helmet use is a permissible legislative choice. Policy in
Oregon is controlled in large part by voters in Portland, which by size
has the highest bicycle mode share of any city in the US, and yet Oregon
does not have a MHL for adults. This is because efforts have been
turned back by reasonable people appearing at legislative committee
meetings, submitting exhibits and doing the hard work associated with
supporting or opposing legislation.

Ohio does not have a MHL for either adults or for kids. I did that hard
work of opposing legislation via letters and appearing at a legislative
committee hearing. It worked.

Your counter-bleating does nothing to promote your cause...

On the contrary, many of the facts I presented in opposition to MHLs
were things I learned in part because of discussions here.

nor does criticizing doctors who are understandably concerned with individual patient outcomes and not population studies. They see a massive scalp wound and naturally conclude that a semi-rigid head covering would have helped.

Any clue why they yell about helmets only for the 1.5% - 2% of such
injuries that are related to bicycling, but not for the 99% that are
related to activities like motoring, pedestrian travel, descending
stairs, climbing ladders, walking around the home?

Bicycling has always been a very minor source of brain trauma. It
doesn't even make the unbiased lists of causes; it's just too small a
percentage of the problem.

Yet bicyclists are saddled with laws, with dishonest fear mongering,
with endless helmet promotions, and with insults if they ride without
helmets. It's a sign of the times that those who decide based on data
are attacked by those who are overconfident know-nothings.

And society as a whole suffers from this. It's not our biggest problem,
but obesity and other effects of sedentary life certainly are societal
health problems. Bicycling is a very practical way of building activity
into daily life. And every study on the subject has found its benefits
GREATLY outweigh its tiny risks. Yet it's saddled with this false image
of "Danger!" even by dedicated cyclists.

It's just weird.

While I agree with you in principal your figure are almost as suspect
as the pro-helmet crowd. You mention miles traveled walking versus
cycling which isn't apples and apples given that the marching rate of
speed has been, since Roman Legion days, about 3 MPH while, if reading
here is an indication,, the average cyclist travels at nearly 10 times
that speed, thus the distance traveled can't be compared.

And as far as numbers of bicyclists can you point to an accurate
number of U.S. bicyclists?

Please don't mention the League of American Liars statement that seems
to count every one who has straddled a bicycle once in the last year
as a cyclist.

Which would seem to indicate that anyone who got a bit "tiddle" at the
company New's Year Party as a full blown alcoholic.



--

Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:33:42 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 10:11:14 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2019 7:39 PM, James wrote:
A pack of rabid Mandatory Helmet Law zealots in Australia (Raphael
Grzebieta, Jake Olivier (former USian), and some other clown who's name
eludes me), recently published a paper that looks at the ratio of
cycling fatalities per head of population in comparison with pedestrian
fatalities per head of population, before and after MHL-Day (1990-91).

They claim some 36% decline in cycling fatalities that are a direct
result of the MHL protecting cyclists from death.

They fail to acknowledge *any* reduction in participation due to the MHL
putting people off riding a bike, and IIRC they suggest there is no good
evidence that MHL puts people off riding a bike.

"In the absence of robust evidence showing a decline in cycling exposure
following helmet legislation or other confounding factors, the reduction
in Australian bicycle-related fatality appears to be primarily due to
increased helmet use and not other factors."

https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ije/dyz003/5307412?redirectedFrom=fulltext


Just yesterday I was made aware of a recent study from a large USian
hospital, who examined some 1454 cycling ER cases.* 14% wore a helmet.
35% of the helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injuries.* 34% of
non-helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injures.* There was no
difference in mortality (1% for both groups).

https://chembiopublishers.com/IJARO/IJARO180008.pdf?platform=hootsuite


How can both studies be correct?

They can't both be correct. And I have been, and remain, astonished at
Olivier's skill at either extreme self deception or, more likely,
blatant lying.

Not only is there plenty of robust evidence of large cycling drops in
Australia and New Zealand due to the MHLs, there is no logical way there
could _not_ be significant drops. Obviously, many people will not ride
if they are forced to wear the plastic hat. They say so repeatedly. How
can there be an equal number of people who say "I never wanted to ride a
bicycle, but now that they've made it more expensive and less
convenient, I want to take it up"??

To me, the most depressing aspects are these: First, so many bicyclists
are so uneducated and so innumerate that they think helmets are both
absolutely necessary and tremendously effective; and second, so many
bicyclists are now so intolerant that they disparage and even mock those
who do not buy into the helmet propaganda.

For more on that, here's an article by Peter Flax, former
editor-in-chief of _Bicycling_ magazine.
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/11/comm...a-bike-helmet/

Note what he says about the "firestorm of shouty criticism" the staff
endured any time they printed a photo of a cyclist riding without a
helmet. Or about the hassling, trolling and shouting he endures for
riding just as everyone rode until about 1975.

The belief in magic hats is intensely irrational. The militancy of the
true believers is obnoxious. Yes, it's not the most important issue in
the world, but it's depressing.


--
- Frank Krygowski

I've been involved in bike-car accidents with and without helmets. Have a scar on my forehead to remind me everyday of the one without a helmet. Got banged up, broken up in both accidents. Emergency room, ambulance for both. Unconscious for the one without a helmet. So I have enough personal experience to prove wearing a helmet helps a lot.

And equally, I have been involved in two crashes with broke bones,
once my pelvis and once with only a broken rib. In neither case were
there any marks on my helmet that indicated that it had touched the
ground.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On 2/15/2019 7:08 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 1:21:11 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/15/2019 12:27 PM, jbeattie wrote:

From a biomechanical standpoint, helmets prevent or reduce certain injuries.

That's certainly true. Nobody here has ever claimed that they don't
reduce abrasions, cuts and perhaps some other minor injuries.

On the other hand, there's been no decrease in bicyclists' concussions
since bike helmets became widely used; in fact, there's been a massive
increase. The MIPS bandwagon is a direct result of that demonstrable
failure. (Not that I expect MIPS to cause any huge improvement.)

Also, there's no obvious evidence that bike helmets really save lives.
As Tom has demonstrated, percentage wise, cycling fatalities have not
dropped any faster than pedestrian fatalities. That's also true for the
subset of fatalities caused by traumatic brain injuries. (And cycling
has always had fewer TBI fatalities, and fewer per mile traveled, than
pedestrian travel. There are something like 325 bike fatalities per year
attributed to TBI, but over 1800 ped TBI fatalities.)

So while helmets may prevent or reduce certain minor injuries, they're
not effective against the ones they have been promoted for. If they were
made to meet FDA standards for proven effectiveness, they'd be taken off
the market!

Mandating helmet use is a permissible legislative choice. Policy in
Oregon is controlled in large part by voters in Portland, which by size
has the highest bicycle mode share of any city in the US, and yet Oregon
does not have a MHL for adults. This is because efforts have been
turned back by reasonable people appearing at legislative committee
meetings, submitting exhibits and doing the hard work associated with
supporting or opposing legislation.

Ohio does not have a MHL for either adults or for kids. I did that hard
work of opposing legislation via letters and appearing at a legislative
committee hearing. It worked.

Your counter-bleating does nothing to promote your cause...

On the contrary, many of the facts I presented in opposition to MHLs
were things I learned in part because of discussions here.

nor does criticizing doctors who are understandably concerned with individual patient outcomes and not population studies. They see a massive scalp wound and naturally conclude that a semi-rigid head covering would have helped.

Any clue why they yell about helmets only for the 1.5% - 2% of such
injuries that are related to bicycling, but not for the 99% that are
related to activities like motoring, pedestrian travel, descending
stairs, climbing ladders, walking around the home?

Bicycling has always been a very minor source of brain trauma. It
doesn't even make the unbiased lists of causes; it's just too small a
percentage of the problem.

Yet bicyclists are saddled with laws, with dishonest fear mongering,
with endless helmet promotions, and with insults if they ride without
helmets. It's a sign of the times that those who decide based on data
are attacked by those who are overconfident know-nothings.

Saddled with laws? You mean the vehicle code?

I meant saddled with helmet laws. Sorry for omitting the obvious word.

The safety regulations for bicycles are so minimal as to be nearly non-existent. No tests. No license. No registration and no safety equipment -- except some US states have mandatory helmet laws for kids and a few cities have MHLs for all.

You're right that it's not the world's biggest outrage. But it is
something that matters to me personally, for several reasons. One is the
abuse I've personally experienced for choosing to almost always omit the
bike helmet. Another is the detrimental effect on cycling as a whole -
because it should be obvious that "dangerizing" cycling is bad.

But perhaps the main reason is the blatant, calculated, irrational
dishonesty of the entire helmet scam and its astonishing success. It's
like the election of Trump on a micro scale - say anything that will get
your bucks (or your vote) no matter how blatantly stupid; sling insults
at anyone who disagrees; portray tiny risks as national emergencies;
prey on fear; spread money around to influence propaganda; declare
proven victory in the face of obvious failure.

And there's my deep disappointment that people who should be my allies
have bought into all the above, and like Trump's 35%, are so absolutely
convinced of their "truth" that they can't even be persuaded to check
their own beliefs for accuracy.

If I didn't love bicycling as much as I do, I suppose it wouldn't matter
much to me. But I do love it, I think it's good for society, and I hate
this nonsense discouragement that helmet promoters have succeeding in
attaching to this beneficial activity.

Again, it's just weird.

--
- Frank Krygowski

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:33:42 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 10:11:14 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2019 7:39 PM, James wrote:
A pack of rabid Mandatory Helmet Law zealots in Australia (Raphael
Grzebieta, Jake Olivier (former USian), and some other clown who's name
eludes me), recently published a paper that looks at the ratio of
cycling fatalities per head of population in comparison with pedestrian
fatalities per head of population, before and after MHL-Day (1990-91).

They claim some 36% decline in cycling fatalities that are a direct
result of the MHL protecting cyclists from death.

They fail to acknowledge *any* reduction in participation due to the MHL
putting people off riding a bike, and IIRC they suggest there is no good
evidence that MHL puts people off riding a bike.

"In the absence of robust evidence showing a decline in cycling exposure
following helmet legislation or other confounding factors, the reduction
in Australian bicycle-related fatality appears to be primarily due to
increased helmet use and not other factors."

https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ije/dyz003/5307412?redirectedFrom=fulltext



Just yesterday I was made aware of a recent study from a large USian
hospital, who examined some 1454 cycling ER cases.* 14% wore a helmet.
35% of the helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injuries.* 34% of
non-helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injures.* There was no
difference in mortality (1% for both groups).

https://chembiopublishers.com/IJARO/IJARO180008.pdf?platform=hootsuite


How can both studies be correct?

They can't both be correct. And I have been, and remain, astonished at
Olivier's skill at either extreme self deception or, more likely,
blatant lying.

Not only is there plenty of robust evidence of large cycling drops in
Australia and New Zealand due to the MHLs, there is no logical way there
could _not_ be significant drops. Obviously, many people will not ride
if they are forced to wear the plastic hat. They say so repeatedly. How
can there be an equal number of people who say "I never wanted to ride a
bicycle, but now that they've made it more expensive and less
convenient, I want to take it up"??

To me, the most depressing aspects are these: First, so many bicyclists
are so uneducated and so innumerate that they think helmets are both
absolutely necessary and tremendously effective; and second, so many
bicyclists are now so intolerant that they disparage and even mock those
who do not buy into the helmet propaganda.

For more on that, here's an article by Peter Flax, former
editor-in-chief of _Bicycling_ magazine.
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/11/comm...a-bike-helmet/

Note what he says about the "firestorm of shouty criticism" the staff
endured any time they printed a photo of a cyclist riding without a
helmet. Or about the hassling, trolling and shouting he endures for
riding just as everyone rode until about 1975.

The belief in magic hats is intensely irrational. The militancy of the
true believers is obnoxious. Yes, it's not the most important issue in
the world, but it's depressing.


--
- Frank Krygowski

I've been involved in bike-car accidents with and without helmets. Have
a scar on my forehead to remind me everyday of the one without a helmet.
Got banged up, broken up in both accidents. Emergency room, ambulance
for both. Unconscious for the one without a helmet. So I have enough
personal experience to prove wearing a helmet helps a lot.

And equally, I have been involved in two crashes with broke bones,
once my pelvis and once with only a broken rib. In neither case were
there any marks on my helmet that indicated that it had touched the
ground.
--

Cheers,

John B.


You need a bigger helmet :-)

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 22:40:21 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
wrote:

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 12:40:07 AM UTC, James wrote:
How can both studies be correct?

Confirmation bias: the answer depends on the assumptions that
analysts if the evidence held before they started the study.
It's the opposite of true science, which is indifferent about
whether the initial hypothesis is upheld or undermine by the
inevitable conclusion a true view of the evidence leads to.

Maybe. My guess(tm), without actually reading each report, is that
the researchers asked each bicycle accident victim if they wanted to
participate in a study. That created a self-selected statistical
population suitable for manufacturing numbers. Additional selection
criteria may have been applied, such as was an automobile involved,
was an animal involved, was there more than one cyclist involved, was
the cyclist moving at the time of the accident, was the helmet in
proper condition, did the victim answer all the study questions, any
medical errors, weather conditions, road conditions, age, sex, and so
on. By simply filtering the participants involved in the study, it
would be fairly easy to produce almost any imaginable conclusion. I
did that once in a study of cell phone radiation medical effects, and
demonstrated that I could adjust the data to match my preconceived
conditions. I've also seen it done many times in high profile
studies.

However, since I haven't read either study, I can't claim that the
authors of the reports were guilty excessive filtering.

Have you ever noticed that the same people always come up with
a whole row of similar-sounding answers? Or, worse, that they
don't apologise when it is pointed out they made a mistake?

Of course. Answers come first. Then we contrive logical evidence to
substantiate those answers. Repetition equals conviction.

I consider apologizing to be a time wasting diversion that detracts
from my production of wrong answers.

Andre Jute
It's not rocket science

It's not even science. Science is the ability to perform an
experiment with predictable results more than once and provide a
testable explanation of the mechanisms involved. We're not even close
to producing repeatable experiments that can simulate real life riding
conditions. I haven't heard of any non-racing cyclists wearing data
loggers or bicycles with flight recorders to record conditions at the
time of the accident.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558