Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

Bill Z. wrote:

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.

That "85%" is absolutely the most commonly stated figure for head
injury reduction by bike helmets. Often, it's stated as "up to 85%,"
as is done for other quack remedies, but it's usually the only number
given - as if the highest, most unrealistic figure is the only one that
matters!

If you truly believe that the only people mentioning "85%" are those
posting here, then you MUST be completely ignorant regarding helmet
promotion.

writes:

Bill Z. wrote:


That "85%" is absolutely the most commonly stated figure for head
injury reduction by bike helmets.

So what? We were talking about helmets, not what Joe Blow writes
in a letter to the editor in the Daily Rag, nor what company X
uses or doesn't use in its marketing.

If you truly believe that the only people mentioning "85%" are those
posting here, then you MUST be completely ignorant regarding helmet
promotion.

We were talking about what people *post* here. Pretending otherwise
is just yet another of your slimy debating tactics.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:

We were talking about what people *post* here. Pretending otherwise
is just yet another of your slimy debating tactics.

As long as he restricts those tactics to Usenet, it's fine. What we
don't want to happen is for that kind of stuff to be used in actual
debates on helmet laws in front of the poliiticians that make decisions.

The sound-bites and stupid anecdotes are used by politicians to mislead
their target audience of naive voters, but it doesn't work the other
way. Most politicians come from a legal backround, and are not impressed
by the type of faulty logic favored by Frank.

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 02:41:52 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

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.

My "side"'s argument is that the evidence is far from clear,and that
the burden of proof remains solidly with those proposing intervention,
not with those urging scepticism. That evidence which purports to be
clear - such as the 1989 Seattle study, which remains the single most
widely-quoted study in the world despite its widely-publicised flaws -
turns out to be flawed. Discussing these flaws is necessary when
people quote the studies. It's called debating the evidence, and it's
the way science and public policy should always work.

Naturally the word "rant" is not pejorative, since the man who throws
a hissy-fit whenever he is called on to produce evidence would never
dream of being rude, since that would be rank hypocrisy.

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.

The UK's primary helmet promoters have just revised their website, and
85% is quoted as the figure for efficacy. This despite the fact that
they were judged to be unable to support it in a recent complaint to
the UK's advertising standards body. So they clearly think the 1989
Seattle study - the largest efficacy figure from any study I can think
of - is the best to quote. The fact that it is well-known to be bogus
clearly does not matter to them. Or to the local authorities whose
websites parrot the figure, often supplied to them by these people.
No other study since has managed to duplicate the figure, which is
hardly a surprise because few other authors would be foolish enough to
compare entirely different groups of cyclists and attribute all the
difference in injury rates to helmets rather than behavioural
differences. Like it or not, the bogus 1989 study is the single most
influential piece of helmet research in the world.

Going back a way I used to believe that stuff as well. Then the
faults in the Seattle study were drawn to my attention, and I read it,
and found that it is extraordinarily poor. And I started reading
other helmet studies and found that they, too, are often extremely
poor. So when they are quoted uncritically I (and others who have
read them) tend to speak up. And it turns out that very few of the
people quoting these figures have actually read and understood the
studies, and fewer still have considered the conflicting evidence.
Many of them are unaware that conflicting evidence even exists.

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.

Really? There are people here who are anti-helmet? Who would they
be?

85% figure quoted as fact without caveat:
http://www.childalert.co.uk/absolute...ldrenw-1-9.asp
http://www.ich.ucl.ac.uk/gosh_famili...le_helmets.htm
http://www.edd.gov.je/site.asp?NavID...D=2&PageID=571
http://www.headway.org.uk/default.asp?step=4&pid=157
http://www.essexcc.gov.uk/vip8/ecc/E....jsp?oid=16298
http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/Environme...tion/cycle.htm
http://www.cwu.org/default.asp?Step=4&pid=177
http://www.dorsetcc.gov.uk/index.jsp?articleid=169841
http://www.peterborough.gov.uk/news/...10808001.shtml
http://www3.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/tr...er_cycling.htm
http://www.capt.org.uk/pdfs/CSWquizhelmets.pdf
http://www.projectboxes.co.uk/resour...le_helmets.doc
http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/cdic/epic/bike/default.htm
http://www.texmed.org/has/prs/hhh/default.asp
http://www.bhit.org

And of course: http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

Randy Swart says that he is aware of the fact that 85% is wrong but
that the figure is so ingrained in the injury prevention community
that "a change would not be helpful" - i.e. don't confuse them with
facts.

In fact it's quote hard to find any site recommending helmets which
does not use the claim "up to 85%" or even the plain figure 85% injury
reduction without even admitting that it is the absolute upper end of
estimates.

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 Fri, 04 Feb 2005 05:29:38 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote in message
. net:

We were talking about what people *post* here. Pretending otherwise
is just yet another of your slimy debating tactics.

As long as he restricts those tactics to Usenet, it's fine. What we
don't want to happen is for that kind of stuff to be used in actual
debates on helmet laws in front of the poliiticians that make decisions.

Quite. Because once the polits realise that the helmet zealots are
lying to them, they won't pass the laws, and we all know that for all
your protestations to the contrary you are in favour of helmet laws -
there is no other reasonable explanation for your repeated urging that
people follow your unproven "they work but don't make us wear them"
route rather than the route of showing the flaws in the studies, as
practised with success in the UK and Republic of Ireland recently.

Frank has testified before a legislature on helmets, you have not. I
know others who have testified in front of legislatures, following
Frank's model, and succeeded in getting the laws abandoned.

I would be really interested to know, though, why it should be
considered a good tactic to allow bogus claims to go unchallenged. It
is not as if the epidemiology community is unaware of the problems of
self-selection bias and confounding - it's causing something of a
crisis in epidemiology at the moment. Check out the debate on HRT and
CHD, on vitamin supplements and on MMR triple vaccine.

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 Fri, 04 Feb 2005 02:44:35 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

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.

So you say, but that is arm-waving, not evidence. The curve may or
may not be of a given shape, but without specifying the various
factors the shape of the curve neither proves nor disproves your
point, as you must surely be aware. So, some facts, please.

And in respect of the original assertion, that high-mileage cyclists
are more likely to wear helmets, you have yet to post any evidence
whatsoever.

Citations, please.

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

Translation: "Laa laa, I'm not listening". Very mature.

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 Fri, 04 Feb 2005 02:41:52 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

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.

My "side"'s argument is that the evidence is far from clear,and that
the burden of proof remains solidly with those proposing intervention,
not with those urging scepticism.

On the contrary, your side has been claiming that helmets are not
effective and "our" side is suggesting that your claims are based on
inadequate evidence. We are the ones being skeptical, and we are not
"promoting" helmets so we have no burden of proof - rather, it is your
responsibility to prove your claims.

rest of Guys' garbage snipped, together with the rest of his messages
today - he's in "reply to everything I say" mode again and I've more
important things to do than to respond to long cut and paste jobs
posted by this troll.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:

On the contrary, your side has been claiming that helmets are not
effective and "our" side is suggesting that your claims are based on
inadequate evidence.

Oh please. There are no "sides" here. There are two people, Guy and
Frank, that ignore the volumes of evidence, and there is the ROW (rest
of world), that looks at things objectively.

It is true that cycling is not a dangerous activity, and that no
mandatory helmet laws are necessary, but there is no debate that
helmeted cyclists fare better than non-helmeted cyclists, when crashes
do occur.

"Steven M. Scharf" writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

On the contrary, your side has been claiming that helmets are not
effective and "our" side is suggesting that your claims are based on
inadequate evidence.

Oh please. There are no "sides" here. There are two people, Guy and
Frank, that ignore the volumes of evidence, and there is the ROW (rest
of world), that looks at things objectively.

Let's define their "side" as the inside of the tiny little circle
that includes Guy, Frank, and maybe 5 or 6 others who are not arguing
on this thread at present. I used "side" to avoid typing their
names---they are not worth the few extra keystrokes. :-)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

My "side"'s argument is that the evidence is far from clear,and that
the burden of proof remains solidly with those proposing intervention,
not with those urging scepticism.

On the contrary, your side has been claiming that helmets are not
effective and "our" side is suggesting that your claims are based on
inadequate evidence. We are the ones being skeptical, and we are not
"promoting" helmets so we have no burden of proof - rather, it is your
responsibility to prove your claims.

rest of Guys' garbage snipped, together with the rest of his messages
today - he's in "reply to everything I say" mode again and I've more
important things to do than to respond to long cut and paste jobs
posted by this troll.

It's interesting how the stuff you snip, which you claim offhand to be
garbage, always seems to be the strongest arguments against your
criticisms... I wonder to whom you think this tactic is convincing?

--
Benjamin Lewis

Tip the world over on its side and everything loose will land in Los Angeles.
-- Frank Lloyd Wright