|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
American (?) daemon in Australia. Take him back!
Jake Olivier just keeps coughing up the statistical fluff balls to damn
us with bicycle helmet laws for eternity. Though I can't read the text, you can be sure there were loaded questions asked of people who already happily pull on a foam hat to ride. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2016/...deters-cycling This guy always produces study results that fit his predetermined views. Remarkable! -- JS |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
American (?) daemon in Australia. Take him back!
On 8/1/2016 2:48 PM, James wrote:
Jake Olivier just keeps coughing up the statistical fluff balls to damn us with bicycle helmet laws for eternity. Though I can't read the text, you can be sure there were loaded questions asked of people who already happily pull on a foam hat to ride. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2016/...deters-cycling This guy always produces study results that fit his predetermined views. Remarkable! Except there really are no studies that link mandatory helmet laws with decreased cycling rates. Cycling rates go up and down for a variety of reasons. Even the AHZs no longer claim that cycling rates went down in Australia's areas with MHLs. Their new claim is that cycling rates are increasing less than the rate of increase in population, and that MHLs are the reason. As we've seen from the AHZs, lack of any statistical evidence has never stopped them from fabricating these bizarre scenarios. They've never learned the difference between causation and correlation, or they have learned it but they don't want to talk about it. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
American (?) daemon in Australia. Take him back!
On 8/1/2016 5:48 PM, James wrote:
Jake Olivier just keeps coughing up the statistical fluff balls to damn us with bicycle helmet laws for eternity. Though I can't read the text, you can be sure there were loaded questions asked of people who already happily pull on a foam hat to ride. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2016/...deters-cycling This guy always produces study results that fit his predetermined views. Remarkable! I'm sadly familiar with the guy's work. He's the academic world's version of Stephen M. Scharf. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
American (?) daemon in Australia. Take him back!
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 2:49:16 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
Jake Olivier just keeps coughing up the statistical fluff balls to damn us with bicycle helmet laws for eternity. Though I can't read the text, you can be sure there were loaded questions asked of people who already happily pull on a foam hat to ride. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2016/...deters-cycling This guy always produces study results that fit his predetermined views. Remarkable! -- JS Why American demon (or daemon as the case may be)? There is no US state with an all-ages mandatory helmet law. You guys are on the cutting edge there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycl...s_in_Australia Keep your nationwide mandatory helmet law along with all your poisonous creatures! And who knows what the report says -- there is not so much as a summary posted online. -- Jay Beattie. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
American (?) daemon in Australia. Take him back!
On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 07:48:52 +1000, James
wrote: Jake Olivier just keeps coughing up the statistical fluff balls to damn us with bicycle helmet laws for eternity. Though I can't read the text, you can be sure there were loaded questions asked of people who already happily pull on a foam hat to ride. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2016/...deters-cycling This guy always produces study results that fit his predetermined views. Remarkable! Someone, "Mark Twain" perhaps, was quoted as saying "Figures don't lie, but liars figure", and I think he was also said to have stated that, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics." Which appears to be a truism. Re helmets (so I won't be castigated for thread theft) I recently read some statistics on bicycle helmets which stated that: "of those treated for head injuries, 60% were wearing a helmet at the time of the accident", which certainly could be interpreted as "more people are injured wearing a helmet than injured without a helmet", which in turn can be interpreted as "Helmets Cause Head Injuries!" :-) -- cheers, John B. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
American (?) daemon in Australia. Take him back!
On 8/1/2016 5:16 PM, jbeattie wrote:
And who knows what the report says -- there is not so much as a summary posted online. Maybe it's too recent for a lot of people to attack it, and bring up The Netherlands. Here's an article by a clueless person, or someone that pretends to be clueless, bringing up The Netherlands in regards to cycling in Australia: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2016/jul/28/roundabout-arguments-cant-disguise-sydneys-cycling-laws-are-taking-the-public-for-a-ride When I see these sorts of articles it's the Donald Trump paradigm. Are these people writing these things because they're clueless, or are they writing them because they know that there are a sufficient number of low-information readers that lack the critical thinking skills to dissect their arguments. And what's interesting is that the government official patiently explained the EXACT reasons why The Netherlands and Denmark are not the same as Australia, but the writer just couldn't even understand this, or maybe he did understand it but didn't want to admit it. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
American (?) daemon in Australia. Take him back!
On 8/1/2016 9:38 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/1/2016 5:16 PM, jbeattie wrote: And who knows what the report says -- there is not so much as a summary posted online. Maybe it's too recent for a lot of people to attack it, and bring up The Netherlands. Here's an article by a clueless person, or someone that pretends to be clueless, bringing up The Netherlands in regards to cycling in Australia: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2016/jul/28/roundabout-arguments-cant-disguise-sydneys-cycling-laws-are-taking-the-public-for-a-ride So, Scharf, are you in favor of a $319 fine for riding a bike without a helmet? And regarding your claim that mandating helmets does not dissuade riding: What's _your_ explanation for the fact that three of the world's very worst performing bike share schemes are in cities that have all-ages mandatory helmet laws? -- - Frank Krygowski |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
American (?) daemon in Australia. Take him back!
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 16:17:31 -0700, sms
wrote: On 8/1/2016 2:48 PM, James wrote: Jake Olivier just keeps coughing up the statistical fluff balls to damn us with bicycle helmet laws for eternity. Though I can't read the text, you can be sure there were loaded questions asked of people who already happily pull on a foam hat to ride. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2016/...deters-cycling This guy always produces study results that fit his predetermined views. Remarkable! Except there really are no studies that link mandatory helmet laws with decreased cycling rates. But there are studies. See: http://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/...t-law-disaster Which says, in part, "The most extensive study of the real-world effects of MHLs on injury rates was by Australian researcher, Dr Dorothy Robinson from the University of New England, who found enforced helmet laws discourage cycling but produce no obvious response in percentage of head injuries'" One can only speculate whether someone making positive statements like "there really are no studies" is a liar, or simply in total ignorance of his/her's subject. Cycling rates go up and down for a variety of reasons. Even the AHZs no longer claim that cycling rates went down in Australia's areas with MHLs. Their new claim is that cycling rates are increasing less than the rate of increase in population, and that MHLs are the reason. As we've seen from the AHZs, lack of any statistical evidence has never stopped them from fabricating these bizarre scenarios. They've never learned the difference between causation and correlation, or they have learned it but they don't want to talk about it. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -- cheers, John B. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
American (?) daemon in Australia. Take him back!
On 8/1/2016 11:21 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 16:17:31 -0700, sms wrote: On 8/1/2016 2:48 PM, James wrote: Jake Olivier just keeps coughing up the statistical fluff balls to damn us with bicycle helmet laws for eternity. Though I can't read the text, you can be sure there were loaded questions asked of people who already happily pull on a foam hat to ride. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2016/...deters-cycling This guy always produces study results that fit his predetermined views. Remarkable! Except there really are no studies that link mandatory helmet laws with decreased cycling rates. But there are studies. See: http://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/...t-law-disaster Which says, in part, "The most extensive study of the real-world effects of MHLs on injury rates was by Australian researcher, Dr Dorothy Robinson from the University of New England, who found enforced helmet laws discourage cycling but produce no obvious response in percentage of head injuries'" One can only speculate whether someone making positive statements like "there really are no studies" is a liar, or simply in total ignorance of his/her's subject. Ignornace and lying are not mutually exclusive. I think Scharf combines both. But I have a quibble with the article cited above. One part's out of date. The author said "MHLs are the main reason for the failure of Australia's two public bike hire schemes. Brisbane and Melbourne are the only two cities in the world with helmet laws to have attempted public bike hire. While schemes in places like Paris, London, Montreal, Dublin and Washington DC have flourished, Brisbane and Melbourne have amongst the lowest usage rates in the world." There's now a third city that's attempted bike share with a mandatory helmet law: Seattle, Washington. And predictably, it's been failing. After doing terribly as an independent initiative, the city finally propped it up by buying it. But ridership is still terrible. See http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-...cycle-sharing/ and three years later, see http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-...es-self-image/ -- - Frank Krygowski |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
American (?) daemon in Australia. Take him back!
On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 01:09:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 8/1/2016 11:21 PM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 16:17:31 -0700, sms wrote: On 8/1/2016 2:48 PM, James wrote: Jake Olivier just keeps coughing up the statistical fluff balls to damn us with bicycle helmet laws for eternity. Though I can't read the text, you can be sure there were loaded questions asked of people who already happily pull on a foam hat to ride. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2016/...deters-cycling This guy always produces study results that fit his predetermined views. Remarkable! Except there really are no studies that link mandatory helmet laws with decreased cycling rates. But there are studies. See: http://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/...t-law-disaster Which says, in part, "The most extensive study of the real-world effects of MHLs on injury rates was by Australian researcher, Dr Dorothy Robinson from the University of New England, who found enforced helmet laws discourage cycling but produce no obvious response in percentage of head injuries'" One can only speculate whether someone making positive statements like "there really are no studies" is a liar, or simply in total ignorance of his/her's subject. Ignornace and lying are not mutually exclusive. I think Scharf combines both. But I have a quibble with the article cited above. One part's out of date. The author said "MHLs are the main reason for the failure of Australia's two public bike hire schemes. Brisbane and Melbourne are the only two cities in the world with helmet laws to have attempted public bike hire. While schemes in places like Paris, London, Montreal, Dublin and Washington DC have flourished, Brisbane and Melbourne have amongst the lowest usage rates in the world." There's now a third city that's attempted bike share with a mandatory helmet law: Seattle, Washington. And predictably, it's been failing. After doing terribly as an independent initiative, the city finally propped it up by buying it. But ridership is still terrible. See http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-...cycle-sharing/ and three years later, see http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-...es-self-image/ One of the things that I find humorous is that there is no law that forbids the wearing of a helmet, or a full suit of armor for that matter, and the truth is that a conventional bicycle helmet offers very little protection. If bicycling is so dangerous one can only wonder why the safety conscious aren't using more protection as in one study: "Population-based incidence rates for head injuries and total injuries resulting from bicycle crashes were calculated in a Seattle, Washington health maintenance organization population. Overall rates were 163 per 100,000 for all injuries and 42/100,000 for head injuries". In other words head injuries comprised only about a quarter of the total injuries. Doesn't the truly safety conscious cyclist require more? -- cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
We arrived back in Australia | [email protected] | Australia | 3 | October 5th 07 12:16 PM |
coming back from downtime - sore left back side - cause? | Paul | General | 1 | May 18th 07 06:45 PM |
places to buy in australia (or to ship to australia) | janey | Unicycling | 12 | December 31st 05 10:30 AM |
Back to Back Epic Uni Rides | aspenmike | Unicycling | 11 | August 17th 05 05:23 AM |
BACK NEXT MONTH IN AUSTRALIA !_d | malcomm | Australia | 0 | December 25th 04 10:36 PM |