Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 12:27:54 -0800, Benjamin Lewis
wrote in message :

I'm still reasonable certain that if you plotted yearly risk against yearly
mileage for the "average cyclist", the graph would be monotonically
increasing, although with a slope of less than one. I agree that the
hourly or per mile risk would go down.

So you say, but as Frank has pointed out the large bicycle clubs - CTC
and LAW for example - have produced statistics which show that their
members routinely go for many years without sustaining even relatively
minor injuries. It is perfectly plausible that an inexperienced
cyclist would fall off three or four times in a year of cycling, while
an experienced daily commuter cyclist would not fall off at all.

Like I say, both the premises of this argument - the higher crash rate
per year and the helmet wearing rate - are speculation, and not from a
source I would be inclined to trust without independent verification.

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 Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:56:06 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

So you say. I am still waiting for any kind of evidence to back up
your arm-waving, though.

The text you snipped immediately after "Irrelevant" was, "Forester
points out in _Effective Cycling_ that skill buys you a factor of 5
safety margin, whereas high mileage cyclists ride a lot more than 5
times further per year than low mileage cyclists."

Forrester's guess may or may not be right. But unless the average
high mileage cyclist rides five times the average distance of the
average low mileage cyclist, that does not prove your point. And it
remains even then an estimate, so where is your actual evidence?

I'll skip the rest of your garbage today.

Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening". I wonder who you think
you're fooling?

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 Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:21:03 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

On which subject I recommend the 1989 Seattle study, a very good
example of these biases in action.

You recommend that one? Good for you.

As a study of confounding and biases in a research paper? I can think
of no finer example.

Funny that your side's only argument seems to be to rant about this
single paper, as you pretty much ignore anything else.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 12:27:54 -0800, Benjamin Lewis
wrote in message :

I'm still reasonable certain that if you plotted yearly risk against yearly
mileage for the "average cyclist", the graph would be monotonically
increasing, although with a slope of less than one. I agree that the
hourly or per mile risk would go down.

So you say, but as Frank has pointed out the large bicycle clubs - CTC
and LAW for example - have produced statistics which show that their
members routinely go for many years without sustaining even relatively
minor injuries.

We were talking about the slope, not a claim of a high accident rate.


Like I say, both the premises of this argument - the higher crash rate
per year and the helmet wearing rate - are speculation, and not from a
source I would be inclined to trust without independent verification.

Absolute nonsense - we have Forester reporting that skill accounts
for about a factor of 5 reduction in the accident rate (varying
somewhat from person to person) and we all know people who ride at
most 10 miles per year versus ones who ride over 5000.

That tells you that you should control for mileage, and whether
high mileage cyclists are more likely to use helmets. Funny
how you want to obscure this point, isn't it, after just ragging
about T&R's study being "biased". :-)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:56:06 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

So you say. I am still waiting for any kind of evidence to back up
your arm-waving, though.

The text you snipped immediately after "Irrelevant" was, "Forester
points out in _Effective Cycling_ that skill buys you a factor of 5
safety margin, whereas high mileage cyclists ride a lot more than 5
times further per year than low mileage cyclists."

Forrester's guess may or may not be right.

He claimed it was a measurement based on accident rates of various
classes of users.

I'll skip the rest of your garbage today.

Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening". I wonder who you think
you're fooling?

Translation - you were being rude and I ignored you. If this was
the first message I had seen today, your others would have been
ignored as well.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 02:01:52 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

[of the 1989 Seattle study]

As a study of confounding and biases in a research paper? I can think
of no finer example.

Funny that your side's only argument seems to be to rant about this
single paper, as you pretty much ignore anything else.

Nice try, Bill, but seriously at odds with the facts.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ms...commentary.pdf

Loads of context, lots and lots of data from countries all around the
world. And of course, because the zealots keep using the 85% figure
even though everybody - including them - knows it's complete ********
- most helmet sceptic sites will have, somewhere, a rebuttal of that
paper. It is not a difficult task, to take it apart. The flaws vary
between glaring and simply obvious.

Of course, if you want to find someone obsessed with the 1989 Seattle
study then you have to follow a helmet zealot around. Someone like
Randy Swart, for example. After all, if the zealots didn't keep
quoting the known wrong 85% figure the Seattle study would have been
long since relegated to the obscurity it so richly deserves. It's
almost as if the real figures are not big enough...

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 Wed, 02 Feb 2005 02:07:08 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

I'm still reasonable certain that if you plotted yearly risk against yearly
mileage for the "average cyclist", the graph would be monotonically
increasing, although with a slope of less than one. I agree that the
hourly or per mile risk would go down.

So you say, but as Frank has pointed out the large bicycle clubs - CTC
and LAW for example - have produced statistics which show that their
members routinely go for many years without sustaining even relatively
minor injuries.

We were talking about the slope, not a claim of a high accident rate.

Were we? I thought you were piling one unproven assertion upon
another. So you have some evidence now do you? Let's hear it.

Like I say, both the premises of this argument - the higher crash rate
per year and the helmet wearing rate - are speculation, and not from a
source I would be inclined to trust without independent verification.

Absolute nonsense - we have Forester reporting that skill accounts
for about a factor of 5 reduction in the accident rate (varying
somewhat from person to person) and we all know people who ride at
most 10 miles per year versus ones who ride over 5000.

That is, as discussed elsewhere, an estimate. Now give me some hard
figures.

That tells you that you should control for mileage, and whether
high mileage cyclists are more likely to use helmets. Funny
how you want to obscure this point, isn't it, after just ragging
about T&R's study being "biased". :-)

No, I'm perfectly prepared to take all factors into account where
there is evidence to support them. So, your evidence? For both
assertions, the Forrester figure cannot count as evidence because he
gives no basis for the estimate.

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 Wed, 02 Feb 2005 02:08:30 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Forrester's guess may or may not be right.

He claimed it was a measurement based on accident rates of various
classes of users.

Did he now. "Various" is not one of the words I find in research
papers very often. Citations?

Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening". I wonder who you think
you're fooling?

Translation - you were being rude and I ignored you. If this was
the first message I had seen today, your others would have been
ignored as well.

I notice that you always seem to think I'm being rude right about the
time I start asking for evidence. Funny, that. I notice also that
you still apparently do not have a mirror.

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 Wed, 02 Feb 2005 02:01:52 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

[of the 1989 Seattle study]

As a study of confounding and biases in a research paper? I can think
of no finer example.

Funny that your side's only argument seems to be to rant about this
single paper, as you pretty much ignore anything else.

Nice try, Bill, but seriously at odds with the facts.

Try again - your side's argument is *not* a series of URLs you post
now, but what the argument that is being posted by your side of the
discussion *on this newsgroup.* Furthermore, what you *rant* about
are the studies you are *complaining* about.


http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ms...commentary.pdf

Loads of context, lots and lots of data from countries all around the
world.

As I said, you people rant about T&R's paper as if that is the *only*
paper that ever reported a postive result regarding helmets.

Of course, if you want to find someone obsessed with the 1989 Seattle
study then you have to follow a helmet zealot around. Someone like
Randy Swart, for example. After all, if the zealots didn't keep
quoting the known wrong 85% figure the Seattle study would have been
long since relegated to the obscurity it so richly deserves. It's
almost as if the real figures are not big enough...

If you do a google search on this newsgroup, you'll find that the people
who consistently bring up this 85% figure are all charter members of
the anti-helmet crew.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 02:07:08 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

I'm still reasonable certain that if you plotted yearly risk against yearly
mileage for the "average cyclist", the graph would be monotonically
increasing, although with a slope of less than one. I agree that the
hourly or per mile risk would go down.

So you say, but as Frank has pointed out the large bicycle clubs - CTC
and LAW for example - have produced statistics which show that their
members routinely go for many years without sustaining even relatively
minor injuries.

We were talking about the slope, not a claim of a high accident rate.

Were we? I thought you were piling one unproven assertion upon
another. So you have some evidence now do you? Let's hear it.

What I claimed follows from the fact that accidents are Poisson
distributed, which they have to be. Look up the necessary and
sufficient conditions for that to see why.

rest of post ignored ... Guy is just ranting and it is a waste
of time.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB